Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Law Case (Attendance of Witnesses)

Mr. Keeling: I beg to present a Petition from Peter Frederick Carter-Ruck partner in the firm of Oswald Hickson Collier and Co., Solicitors for the Defendants in an action entered for trial in the King's Bench Division and entitled Braddock v. Tillotson's Newspapers Ltd.
The Petition states that the evidence of certain hon. Members and certain Press men attending the House is desired touching incidents in the House during the Report Stage of the Transport Bill on the night of 30th April-1st May, 1947, and the Petition continues:
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that the leave of your Honourable House may be given to call the following witnesses to give evidence of incidents in the House of Commons in the said proceedings in the High Court of Justice, namely, Patrick George Thomas Buchan-Hepburn. Member of Parliament for the Liverpool East Toxteth Division, Henry Studholme, Member of Parliament for the Tavistock Division, Martin Lindsay, Member of Parliament for the Solihull Division; Harry Mcl twain Bunton. Harold Douglas Bradley, Reginald A. J. Shore, Parliamentary Reporters; Robert Burns Carvel, Political Correspondent.
And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
As I propose to move a Motion in respect of this Petition, I ask that the Petition be read.

Petition read.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, "That leave be given to the said Members and the other persons named in the Petition to attend and give evidence accordingly."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I ask leave to present a Petition of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) which is signed by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner alleges that on 1st May, 1947, certain defamatory statements were published in the "Bolton Evening News" concerning the Petitioner's conduct during the Debates on proceedings in this House, that they are untrue, that your Petitioner has commenced an action in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice against Tillotson's Newspapers Ltd., the printers and publishers of the newspaper, that it is expedient to call certain Members and officials as witnesses, and this cannot be done without committing a contempt of Parliament unless the consent of this House is given, and the Petition continues:
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will be graciously pleased to give leave to the Members and officials of your Honourable House named herein and any other persons there named to attend the trial of the said action and to give evidence as witnesses and to produce the journals of your Honourable House so far as they relate to the matters in question, each according to his competence, namely, the right hon. William Whiteley, the right hon. Alfred Barnes, Mr. Mitchison, Mrs. Wills, Mr. Daines, Mrs. Manning, Mr. Tom Brown, Mr. Bruce, Mr. Julius Silverman, Mr. George Thomas, Mr. Millington, one of the Clerks of the Table or other appropriate Officer, your Petitioner.
And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

I beg that the Prayer be read.

Petition read.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I beg to move, That leave be given to the said Members and to the said Officer to attend and give evidence and to produce the Journal accordingly."
This Motion relates to the same action as was mentioned in the Petition which has just been presented and is brought on simultaneously, or as simultaneously as possible, with it.

Mr. Willis: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN'S OFFICERS (APPOINTMENTS)

Viscountess Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have appointed children's officers; and how many have followed the recommendation of the Curtis Committee and appointed women.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The Curtis Committee did not make any definite recommendation that women should be appointed to these posts but said that they thought it might be found that the majority of persons suitable for the work would be women. Ninety local authorities have so far appointed children's officers. In five cases, the same person has been appointed by two neighbouring authorities. Of the 85 persons appointed, 64 are women.

Viscountess Davidson: Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be far more practicable for women to do this work whenever possible, and will he use his influence with the authorities concerned to this end?

Mr. Ede: I think the best person amongst the applicants for the job should be appointed, irrespective of sex, but I am gratified to find that so large a proportion of the people actually appointed are, in fact, women.

Commander Maitland: Can the Home Secretary say what proportion of the local authorities who are going to make these appointments have actually done so?

Mr. Ede: I think there are approximately 146 of these authorities in England and Wales, and 90 have already made the appointments.

Commander Maitland: Would it not be easier to get the best people for this job if the very rigid enforcement of the academic qualifications necessary were relaxed to some degree in order to provide a larger field from which to make selections?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. There is no rigid application of the rule——

Commander Maitland: Oh, yes, there is.

Mr. Ede: —but I must have regard to the steps which people have taken to qualify themselves for the post and not give way to local pressure that some existing officer, generally of an advanced age, of the local authority should be appointed to the post.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED PRISONERS (NOTEBOOKS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now decided to modify the rule of the Prison Commissioners that prisoners' notebooks, other than those used for educational purposes, must not be taken away on discharge.

Mr. Ede: I have come to the conclusion that any amendment of the rule referred to should be considered as part of a wider problem raising questions fundamental to prison administration; such, for example, as the question whether prisoners should be allowed to undertake remunerative work in their spare time. It would not, I think, be wise to make any change in the rule without having the implications of a change examined by the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, of which Mr. Justice Birkett is Chairman, and I am referring the matter accordingly to the Council for their advice.

Mr. Keeling: Would the Home Secretary agree that if any great work of literature should be written in prison it is desirable that it should not perish?

Mr. Ede: I hope that no great work of literature will perish, but I have no reason to think that, apart from one or two obvious examples, any great harm has been done by the existing rule. I am, however, examining it most sympathetically.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN SERVANTS OVERSEAS (FRANCHISE)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the classes of servants of the Crown abroad to be enfranchised in accordance with Section 6 of the Repre-


sentation of the People Act, 1948; and a copy of the instructions given to them, in accordance with Section 71, to assist them and their wives in the exercise of the franchise.

Mr. Ede: The classes of Crown servants in question will be prescribed by regulations which must be approved by both Houses of Parliament before they come into force, and until then no instructions can be issued. The drafting of regulations dealing with this among other matters is in hand but will take some time to complete.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend to the wives of members of the Control Commission in Germany the right to vote by proxy at elections in this country at present granted only to their husbands.

Mr. Ede: The Representation of the People Act, 1948, provides for this, with effect from the coming into force of the 1949 autumn register.

Mr. Lipson: Is the Home Secretary aware that an officer of the Control Commission has been informed that his wife is not eligible to have a vote? Can he be informed that she will be?

Mr. Ede: This particular piece of legislation does not come into effect until the autumn register of 1949. The officer may have been correctly informed as to the existing law, which will be altered when the register to which I have referred is compiled.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR RAID SHELTERS (DEMOLITION)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent he has stopped the demolition of shelters from air attack.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions have been sent to local authorities as to the continued demolition of air-raid shelters.

Mr. Ede: Local authorities have been instructed to suspend all shelter demolition for the time being, though certain exceptions are being allowed, where necessary, in the public interest.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUGS (IMPORT LICENCES)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the loss of earnings to this country involved in his decision to refuse to grant a licence for the importation of certain drugs by a Surbiton firm, particulars of which have been sent to him, for purpose of re-export to Norway, he will reconsider that decision.

Mr. Ede: I have again considered the facts in this case, but, for the reasons already given to the hon. Member, I am not prepared to grant a licence to the firm in question to deal in. or procure, dangerous drugs.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his decision has prevented this country from earning an appreciable amount of foreign currency in the re-export business, and is it not a fact that the firm in question undertook to carry out any precautions upon which the right hon. Gentleman might decide for safeguarding the drugs?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I do not accept the first part of that supplementary question because, as I am advised, no increase in the export trade of the country would have resulted. It would merely have meant that the firm in question would have carried on a trade that some other firm is already doing.

Oral Answers to Questions — ERWIN SCHOLZ (DEPORTATION)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now say why permission was given for Erwin Scholz, a one-time member of the Nazi Party and German ex-prisoner of war, to be in the United Kingdom; whether he is aware that this man is an associate of the Fascist movement; and if he will arrange for his immediate deportation.

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a statement on the inquiries he has caused to be made into the conduct of persons claiming to be members of a German


group, named Ostara, and into the incident which took place recently at the International Spiritualists Congress held at Conway Hall.

Mr. Ede: Scholz was one of many German ex-prisoners of war who were discharged to civilian status in this country to work in agriculture. It is clear, however, that he is making no useful contribution to this end, and, as a result of the inquiries I referred to in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) on 22nd September, I have made an Order requiring Scholz to leave the United Kingdom and to stay out of it.

Mr. Plaits-Mills: Although I am sure the House are very pleased with that answer, could the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether steps will be taken to see what others of these German prisoners who have promised to behave nicely are behaving in a similar way?

Mr. Ede: Where any delinquency on their part is brought to my notice, appropriate steps are taken, but I have every reason to believe that the majority of them are decent, hard-working folk who are making a contribution to the recovery of this country.

Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend say if it is the case that the other person concerned in the particular incident was not a German ex-prisoner at all, but a British Fascist named Gaster, posing as a German, for some reason?

Mr. Ede: I must not be bound to any name without notice, but there was a second person involved with this man Scholz, and the second person was a British subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — FASCIST PROPAGANDA

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that persons are engaged in the production in Britain of Fascist propaganda designed for distribution in Germany, contrary to the provisions of the Potsdam Agreement to outlaw and eliminate all Nazi and militarist doctrines and propaganda; and whether he will take powers to enable him to prosecute such persons.

Mr. Ede: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that such steps as are possible are taken to prevent the circulation in the British zone in Germany of documents the publication of which in that country would be contrary to the provisions of the Potsdam Agreement which the hon. Member has in mind. Action on my part such as is suggested in the Question is not required by that Agreement.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Whether action is required or not, does the answer mean that we have to allow evilly disposed persons to prepare propaganda in this country for the re-establishment of Nazism in Germany and it is only when it is being distributed in Germany that we can begin to take steps to stop its dissemination?

Mr. Ede: Oh, no, my answer meant exactly what it said. I have not only to have regard to the spread of iniquitous propaganda designed for the spread of Nazism.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLACK MARKET OFFENCES (SENTENCES)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the variation in sentences by magistrates for similar blackmarket offences; and if he will issue a circular with a view to achieving more uniformity in these sentences.

Mr. Ede: In fixing the appropriate penalty for this, as for any other class of offence, the court has to consider the whole of the circumstances of the offence and of the offender, and variations of sentence are therefore to be expected. It would not be proper for me to suggest to a court how it should exercise the discretion vested in it by law, and it is not within my province as Home Secretary to attempt to standardise sentences.

Major Legge-Bourke: While welcoming what the Home Secretary has said, may I ask whether his attention has been called to the announcement in the Press in September that the T.U.C. were calling on all trades councils to tabulate any complaints they may have of this kind?

Mr. Ede: I can see no objection to complaints being tabulated. I shall not attempt to standardise sentences.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is the duty of the T.U.C. to criticise the courts?

Mr. Ede: Any citizen in this country, outside this House, appears to be able to criticise the courts.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Public Meeting (Incident)

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that Mr. Warren Austin, a diplomat, when speaking at a recent non-party meeting in support of the United Nations organisation was interrupted by a number of Communists who also threw leaflets at the platform; and if, in view of the ill-effect of such conduct upon international relationship, he will instruct the police to take action under the Public Meetings Act against the persons responsible for insulting a member of the Diplomatic Corps.

Mr. Ede: I have made inquiries and am informed that the police are not in possession of any evidence to support proceedings for a criminal offence.

Earl Winterton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there were no police present, in view of the fact that 20 police were sent to protect another accredited representative of a foreign country, in the shape of the Dean of Canterbury, when he spoke at a meeting just afterwards?

Mr. Ede: If the promoters of this meeting had asked for police protection inside the meeting, it would have been considered by the Commissioner of Police and appropriate steps taken. I am informed that no such request was made.

Mr. Gallacher: Was Mr. Austin speaking as a diplomat, or as a partisan of a particular foreign policy and as the representative of marauding and rapacious capitalists?

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, may I call attention to the attack made by an hon. Gentleman opposite on a

distinguished member of the American diplomatic service and ask if he is not entitled to the protection of the Chair?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) was asking in what character the said person was speaking, whether as a private individual or as a member of a diplomatic corps. I thought that a plain question which, so far, did not indicate that I should interfere, but I was waiting to hear the answer.

Earl Winterton: May I call attention to the fact that the hon. Member also spoke of the United States Government as a marauding government? I understood that on previous occasions you had deprecated the use of these abusive terms about friendly foreign Powers.

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree, but my impression was—I may have misheard—that the hon. Member said "on behalf of marauding capitalists."

Mr. Gallacher: May I draw attention to the fact that the noble Lord seems slightly biased against me?

Mr. Cocks: Is it in Order for the noble Lord to refer to a distinguished dignitary of the Church of England as an accredited representative of a foreign Power?

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting to hear the answer of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Ede: I regret that I cannot say in what capacity Mr. Warren Austin was addressing this meeting.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Is not the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord, aware that what caused the trouble at the meeting was that the British people, unlike His Majesty's Government, do not particularly like being given orders by people representing a foreign Power?

Pay and Conditions

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received any interim report from the Oaksey Commitee on Police Pay and Conditions; and whether he can yet make any statement on pay and allowances to police forces.

Mr. Ede: The answer to both parts of the Question is, "No," Sir.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that no report and no statement has been made on the question of pay and conditions in the police forces, is causing grave concern and is in very great degree jeopardising recruitment to the police forces of the country?

Mr. Ede: This Committee was appointed several months ahead of the date on which it was originally proposed to appoint it. It is receiving evidence from representatives of the police forces and the authorities and I hope that its proceedings will not be unduly delayed.

Mrs. Braddock: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of the earliest date upon which he will be able to make a statement on the matter?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir.

Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the very strong case put up by the hon. Lady and myself—acting together for the first and only time—in support of the appointment of this Committee, has been strengthened by recent events; and is he aware that there is more difficulty than ever in obtaining recruits for the police forces owing to disagreements between chief constables and men they command?

Mr. Ede: The last part of the supplementary question is a matter which can be dealt with under the disciplinary procedure of the force and full reports can be sent to the Home Secretary when a junior officer feels aggrieved. I would not say that any delay which it may be thought has occurred in the reporting of this Committee has added to the difficulties of recruitment.

Traffic Control Duties

Mr. Symonds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the establishment of a special section of the police force for traffic control duties only, and the enlistment into it of men somewhat below the physical standards required for the full range of normal police duties, thereby making more policemen available for the prevention of crime.

Mr. Ede: I do not agree that a lower standard of physical fitness or mental alertness than that required for normal

police duty would satisfy the requirements of traffic control work. Police on traffic duty must always be available to deal with crime or other incidents requiring police attention and the general efficiency of the force would not, in my view, be improved by the introduction of a separate section with limited responsibilities.

Mr. Symonds: Is it really an economical use of manpower to use men who are 100 per cent. fit simply to see that pedestrian crossings are respected?

Mr. Ede: There are occasions in such circumstances when it is particularly desirable that the police officer should he agile.

FIRE SERVICE (OFFICERS)

Mr. Grimston: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regular officers in the National Fire Service failed to find officer posts with the new fire authorities; how many left the Fire Service on 31st March, 1948, on such pension as they had earned; and how many remained and were transferred in the rank of fireman.

Mr. Ede: I am asking the fire authorities for this information and will send it to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Grimston: If I put down a Question a little later on, will the Home Secretary deal with it?

Mr. Ede: As the hon. Gentleman realises, the responsibility in this matter is that of the fire authorities. I will try to let him know when I have sufficient information to justify a further Question being put down.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, MANCHESTER

Squadron-Leader Fleming: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent there has been any decrease in juvenile crime in the city of Manchester since the education committee has taken control of more than 900 youth club centres.

Mr. Ede: Juvenile delinquency in Manchester has arisen recently, though not so much as in many other districts. The


rise cannot be attributed to any single cause. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education that of 942 youth service units in Manchester only 28 civic youth clubs are controlled by the local education authority.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: In order to reduce juvenile delinquency, would the right hon. Gentleman consider taking steps to advise the local magistrates that whenever they bind over a juvenile offender, particularly in a juvenile court, they should either make it a condition, if permissible, or request that the boy or girl should be made a member of one of the youth clubs, particularly those assisted by police officers?

Mr. Ede: I should be reluctant to suggest to magistrates that they should make such a suggestion. I know that in many cases the promoters and organisers of juvenile clubs work in the closest association with the magistrates, and that they privately approach a youth whom they think is likely to be assisted by their club, when they can do that without prejudice to the club. I am bound to say that I can see that other members of the club might well object to it being said that "This is the club to which delinquents are sent."

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it took over 20 years to get youth work transferred from the Home Office to the Ministry of Education?

SEWAGE DISPOSAL SCHEME, OXFORDSHIRE

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Health why he will not consider making a firm allocation of the sum of £4,500 towards the sewage disposal scheme for the parishes of Hensington Without and Wootton, which sum was provisionally allocated on 3rd April, 1947, in view of the difficulty of local authorities making firm decisions if such support is not made definite.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): A grant of £4,500 was fixed provisionally in this instance on the understanding that the local authority were

about to incur further expenditure on another scheme. This has not yet matured, and the amount of grant was reduced accordingly.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the Minister see whether he cannot make this grant, which was originally made, available to the local authority? Is it not much more important that this work should be done than the road work, in respect of which a large amount is being spent by the Ministry of Transport?

Mr. Bevan: If expenditure is incurred in the preparation of a larger scheme, I will, of course, take that into account.

BLIND PERSONS, WALES

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that recent statistics reveal the number of blind persons in Wales to be 219 per 100,000 of the population; that this is a higher proportion than for any other country with a white population; that Wales ranks fourth in all countries for which statistics are available; and if he will cause special investigations to be made to inquire into this high incidence.

Mr. Bevan: I am aware that the number of registered blind persons in Wales approaches the figure stated, but this is not noticeably greater than the numbers in England. Comparison with statistics for other countries is unreliable and I am not satisfied that a special investigation would serve a useful purpose.

Mr. Evans: Might it not be that the standard of registration in Wales does not conform to the standard which is perhaps more strictly observed in other parts? Might that not be due partly to the faulty definition of blindness in the Blind Persons Act, now carried into the National Assistance Act, about which representations have been made to my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Bevan: There is a great deal of substance in what my hon. Friend has said, but if he will note the differences they are not so marked as might at first be thought. The numbers per 100,000 are, in the Northern area, 206, in the Southern area, 173, in the Western area, 205, and in Wales, 211.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Doctors (Basic Salary)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Health why it has been decided that new entrants to the general practice of medicine are not to receive the basic salary as of right.

Mr. Bevan: To meet the wishes of the medical profession. themselves.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health in how many cases applications for basic salary have been received by executive councils in England and Wales; and in how many cases this has been granted.

Mr. Bevan: Precise figures are not available but I understand that more than a thousand applications have been granted.

Mr. Hastings: Can the Minister give any idea of the proportion of the applications which have been granted?

Mr. Bevan: I cannot give any details at the moment. This is primarily a matter for the executive councils. Unless appeals are made at this stage, I would not have the information.

Mr. Hastings: Can my right hon. Friend say how many appeals are now in his hands?

Mr. Bevan: Not without notice.

Mr. Charles Williams: Can the Minister say how long it will be until we can have a little further information on this point?

Dr. Segal: Does not the Minister agree that the attempt on the part of the medical profession to impose a means test upon doctors who apply for a basic salary, is really an effort to defeat the whole object of the basic salary?

Mr. Bevan: It would be very undesirable for me to make a comment upon the representations of the medical profession. I must deal with the representatives of the profession. If doctors have individual complaints they ought to make them first to their profession, so that I may hear them through the profession.

Hearing Aids

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the standard Medresco Hearing Aid supplied under the National Health Service does not suit all deaf persons, he will allow such persons a grant to assist them to purchase alternative equipment more suited to their individual needs.

Mr. Spearman: asked the Minister of Health (1) if he will arrange to provide free batteries to existing holders of commercial deaf hearing aids;
(2) if he will give a grant in aid for the purchase of commercial deaf hearing aids until Medresco sets are available.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Health if he will make arrangements to provide free batteries to existing holders of commercial deaf hearing aids; and if he will also arrange to make grants to deaf persons to help them to purchase alternative equipment where it can be shown that the standard Medresco Hearing Aid is not suitable for the individual concerned.

Mr. Bevan: The answer is, "No, Sir."

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does not the Minister appreciate that the same type of aid does not necessarily suit every person who suffers from deafness, and will he give further consideration to this matter?

Mr. Bevan: Further investigation is proceeding as to the proportion of deaf people who cannot be properly fitted with the instrument which we are supplying. At the moment, that percentage is unknown, and until further investigation has taken place we think it would be very unwise to extend the facilities.

Mr. Spearman: Does not the Minister think that if free batteries are allowed to holders of Government aids and not to owners of commercial types, it is a direct encouragement to the latter to throw away their aids and unnecessarily require Government aids, thereby increasing the expenditure which will fall upon the taxpayer?

Mr. Bevan: It would be very difficult administratively to provide the variety of batteries required in the private sets. It is much easier administratively to pro-


vide the standardised batteries which are provided with the Government aid.

Mr. Baird: Is the Government hearing aid suitable for bone conduction cases?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, in many instances, but as I say, further inquiries are taking place, and I think that Members in all parts of the House would feel that we ought not to extend the area of the facilities now provided until we have digested what we are already providing.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the aid now being supplied by the Government is giving great satisfaction to all who are using it, and that apart from the suggested very minor adjustment—I hope his Department will make inquiries into it—it is the best and most easily used type of aid which those who need such an aid have ever been able to obtain?

Mr. Bevan: It is true that the hearing aid is giving every satisfaction. Minor adjustments will, of course, be required from time to time. We are not ending our development here.

Mr. Mitchison: Can my right hon. Friend say when these excellent hearing aids will be available in Kettering?

Mr. Bevan: I think that my hon. and learned Friend will find that before the end of the month a centre will be opened in his part of the country to which applications can be made.

Foreign Seamen

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Health under what particular arrangement it is possible for foreign seamen to obtain free sets of teeth and glasses under the National Health Scheme; and what the approximate estimated costs of this service will be.

Mr. Bevan: There are no special arrangements. The Act is so framed as to cover any aliens, who while in this country can make use of all the facilities of the National Health Service like anyone else. No separate estimate of cost is therefore available.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can the Minister dispose of the report which is going around that a drain on the resources of the National Health Service

is taking place due to the peddling of sets of false teeth and spectacles by Lascars in the Middle East?

Mr. Bevan: I have not heard any of those rumours, and I would like to receive the information about them, if the noble Lord would be so good as to let me have it, but I expect that his sources are not very reliable.

Tuberculosis (Treatment Abroad)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that regional hospital boards are unable to pay for the treatment of tuberculous cases in Switzerland as was previously the practice of some county and county borough councils before the National Health Service Act came into operation; and whether, in view of the deficiency of beds in this country for the treatment of tuberculosis, he will make it possible for regional boards to provide treatment abroad when desirable.

Mr. Bevan: I have no power to make it possible for regional boards to do this or to authorise expenditure of this kind.

Mr. Greenwood: In order that it may not be possible to say that tuberculosis patients are worse off under the new scheme than previously, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of legislation at a later stage?

Mr. Bevan: I cannot agree that they are worse off. I think that is a gross exaggeration. If it be the case that there are further forms of treatment that can be given in other countries, the remedy is not to send our people to other countries, but to make that form of treatment available here.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it not a fact that since this has been taken over by the National Health Service, county councils and county boroughs have stopped sending these cases to Switzerland, and why is it that the present authorities cannot carry out this function?

Mr. Bevan: I have already answered the Question. I do not accept the statement that there are forms of treatment available elsewhere that we are not able to provide here. Certainly it is undesirable that we should spend large sums of money in sending patients abroad.

Mr. Edward Evans: May I ask the Minister if it would not be proper to use voluntary funds in order to have the facilities made available?

Mr. Bevan: That is another question, and it may involve matters of exchange rather than the actual use of money here.

Mr. Molson: In view of the fact that there is an advisory committee to consider whether to make foreign currency available for sick persons to obtain treatment overseas, are we to understand from a Minister of the Crown that that committee has been told not to grant further applications?

Mr. Bevan: What I said was that the regional boards have not the power under the National Health Act to provide the money. But I believe there is a committee which works in conjunction with the Treasury and considers whether hardship cases can be sent abroad. But that is another matter. It rests with the Treasury and not with me.

Mr. John Lewis: When my right hon. Friend refers to forms of treatment, will he bear in mind that the climate of Switzerland is regarded as being a form of treatment?

Mr. Bevan: That is a matter for medical opinion and not for me. In that case I must rely upon the advice I am given.

Mr. Greenwood: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is in fact a serious shortage of beds for the treatment of tuberculosis cases and of nurses to handle tuberculosis patients and that if some patients could be sent abroad, it would be a great relief.

Mr. Bevan: There is no serious shortage of beds—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will permit me to say so, the most serious shortage is the shortage of staff. We are doing our best to recruit staff, and it is far better for us to use our energies in this direction at the present time.

Dental Treatment

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Health how many people have applied for free dental treatment since the setting up of the National Health Service.

Mr. Bevan: About 1¼ million.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that doctors and dentists are breaking down under the strain of the work imposed upon them by the new Health Service and that they cannot cope with it?

Mr. Bevan: There is no evidence of that whatsoever.

Personal Case

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Mr. E. Bowen, of Altham Cottage, Knockholt, who has had both legs amputated, is still awaiting information as to his future treatment and the supplying of a mechanical chair; and if he will take the necessary steps to see that Mr. Bowen's disabilities are attended to forthwith.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. Mr. Bowen is perfectly satisfied with his treatment, which is almost completed, and knows that he will be provided with a mechanical tricycle as soon as possible.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that when this Question was put down he was not satisfied and that it is only because I threatened to put down a Question that Mr. Bowen got immediate treatment.

Mr. Bevan: That may reveal the efficacy of Questions in Parliament, and I have never under-estimated their importance. Why the hon. Member should reproach himself because on one occasion he has been useful, I do not know.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order. May I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker? I object to being called "vermin" in other words.

Hospital Committees (Publicity)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Press is not now admitted to meetings of the local hospital committees west of Bristol or in Cornwall; and, in view of the fact that these local hospital committees were provided so that they could form a liaison with the public, he will take action to remedy this grievance.

Mr. Bevan: The function of hospital management committees is the day-to-day control and management of their hospitals; and while I hope they will take


every opportunity of keeping the closest contact with public opinion, the admission of the Press to their meetings is a matter for their own decision.

Dental Estimates Board

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health what is the address of the Dental Estimates Board; what are the names of its members, their annual salaries, the number of the staff there employed and the annual cost of the Board to the taxpayer.

Mr. Bevan: I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that if anyone is suffering from toothache, before he can have his teeth pulled he must make application, on about 14 different forms, to this unnecessary organisation.

Mr. Bevan: I am very glad to find that the hon. Member has not found it necessary to take advantage of the service and so find out the facts.

Following is the statement:

The address of the Dental Estimates Board is: Dental Estimates Board, Eastbourne, Sussex.

The members of the Board and their respective annual salaries are:

Chairman: Mr. W. L. Boness, L.D.S., R.C.S.—£2,000.
Vice-Chairman: Mr. V. W. Humpherson, L.D.S., R.C.S.—£1,900.

Full-time Dental Members—

Mr. F. J. Marson, L.D.S., R.C.S.—£1,750.
Mr. A. P. McClare, L.D.S., R.C.S.£1,750.
Mr. T. Leaver—£1,750.

Part-time Dental Members—
Mr. J. Lauer, L.D.S., R.C.S.
Mr. W Kelsey Fry, C.B.E., M.C., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., F.D.S.

Part-time Lay Members—
Mr. E. W. Spackman.
Mr. T. Allsop, J.P.

The four part-time members of the Board are paid a sessional fee at the rate of £7 7s. per day whenever it is necessary for them to attend.

The number of staff at present employed by the Board is 671.

The annual cost of the Board, including the salaries of the Chairman and Members, based on current rates of expenditure, is approximately £260,000.

Optician, Glossop (Employment)

Mr. Molson: asked the Minister of Health why Mr. Tierney, Gladstone Street, Glossop, who seeks employment as an optician under the National Health Scheme was told in a letter dated 15th September to apply to the Central Professional Committee and was told by the Central Professional Committee in a letter dated 20th October to apply to the Ministry of Health; when the tribunal to consider such cases will be appointed; and whether he will forthwith authorise the employment of Mr. Tierney as an optician under the National Health Scheme.

Mr. Bevan: The letter of 15th September was based on a misunderstanding which I much regret. I am considering Mr. Tierney's application in consultation with the Central Professional Committee, and will let him, and the hon. Member know the decision as soon as possible. Consideration of such applications need not await the tribunal's appointment.

Registrations

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Health how many doctors and dentists and what percentage of the population have joined the Health Service.

Mr. Bevan: The figures are 18,165 general practitioners, 8,343 dentists and 93.1 per cent. of the population.

District Nurses (Motor Cars)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Health what arrangements exist for supplying motor cars to district nurses.

Mr. Bevan: The possibility of improving the supply of motor cars for midwives and home nurses is being examined. Arrangements already exist for motor dealers to give preference to midwives.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is great concern in the country districts about this matter, and will he try to give a more explicit answer saying that these district nurses will get a very high priority for motor cars?

Mr. Bevan: I have said in my reply that I am making inquiries to see whether


some preference can be given. Hon. Members know that this is an extremely complicated matter, but I am hoping to get over the difficulties.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Will the Minister not only endeavour to get cars, but approach his right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power to see that these people get ample petrol?

Mr. Bevan: We have been anxious not to have any system of rigid control because I know that that is objectionable to hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Equalisation Grant

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health when he proposes to issue the regulations under Section 15 (i) and (ii) of the Local Government Act, 1948, for determining, in connection with the calculation of equalisation grant, the adjustments which are to be made for any abnormal treatment of income or expenditure in the accounts of a local authority, as the delay in announcing the regulations is causing great inconvenience to many local authorities.

Mr. Bevan: Further experience of the Provisional calculations on the returns of expenditure from local authorities is desirable before these regulations are made. Meanwhile the probable content of them is indicated in notes circulated with the form of return. I am not aware that this causes inconvenience but if the hon. Member has any example in mind I shall be glad to consider it.

Members' Allowances

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the maximum subsistence allowances permitted by Local Government (Members' Allowances) Regulations, 1948, compare unfavourably with those of local government officers in receipt of a salary of £700 and over; and whether he will take steps to relieve the invidious position in which local government representatives are placed by these regulations.

Mr. Bevan: I am aware that the maximum rates of subsistence allowance prescribed by the Local Government (Members' Allowances) Regulations, 1948, differ from those in the national scheme of conditions of service for local government officers. The rates which I have prescribed relate to expenses necessarily incurred by members of local authorities and I consider them adequate for their purpose.

HOUSING SCHEME, FENISCOWLES

Mr. Stanley Prescott: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that of 20 houses sanctioned to be erected at Feniscowles, only six have been completed; that the biggest hold-up is due to the shortage of plasterers; and what steps he is taking to remedy this position.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. Progress on this housing scheme has been slow, but the contractor has only recently notified the local employment exchange of his need for more plasterers. The Ministry of Labour are arranging to recruit two men, and the contractor hopes to transfer two others from a housing contract which is nearing completion.

Mr. Prescott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shortage of plasterers is not limited to this site, but is a general shortage throughout the whole of Lancashire, and is he taking steps to remedy the position throughout the whole of the North of England?

Mr. Bevan: I have not heard that that is the case, but I will certainly make inquiries.

ENBORNE VALLEY WATER SCHEME

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the anxiety of all those affected by the proposal to make a large reservoir in the Enborne Valley, he will publish the bore-hole findings relating to the nature of the subsoil in this area.

Mr. Bevan: These findings are the property of the Metropolitan Water Board and will no doubt be made available by them in the event of their seeking


powers to construct this reservoir. Otherwise, the question of publication is one for them.

Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Metropolitan Water Board has refused to divulge this information to the Hampshire and Berkshire County Councils, and what possible reason can there be for withholding this information from people whose farms and homes are at stake?

Mr. Bevan: It is entirely a matter for the Metropolitan Water Board to determine whether it will make this information available. Before action can be taken we would of course know what the technical facts are, and that is the best protection for the public.

Mr. Prescott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposal to flood this valley was taken by the Socialist majority on the Metropolitan Water Board against the express advice of the chief engineer? Is he further aware that if the plan goes through, the house which he occupied for so many years will be completely obliterated?

Mr. Bevan: It is a monstrous abuse of Parliamentary privilege to attack a statutory undertaking for something which, in my respectful submission, it has not yet decided to do. There has been no decision on the part of any authority to flood any valley whatsoever. All that is happening is that, under the law, preliminary investigations are being made. The law provides for the protection of the public by a public inquiry before any action is taken.

Mr. Berry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this report has not yet been presented to the Metropolitan Water Board and that the Board is not in a position to decide whether it should be made public or not? Is he further aware that the decision to have these preliminary borings made was taken in the fashion used by the Board since its foundation in 1903?

Mr. Donner: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Metropolitan Water Board for this information and make it public? If he will not, will he state why not?

Mr. Bevan: Because the Board is one party to a claim. It may, when it has

the technical report, decide that it is not worth while proceeding with this scheme. The Metropolitan Water Board may be an applicant for certain powers. There will be objectors to those powers and an inquiry will be held. Then the Minister of Health has a judicial position under the Act and it would be quite improper for me to bring pressure to bear at this stage upon one side or the other.

Mr. Prescott: As a member of the Metropolitan Water Board, and knowing more about this matter than the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

SCOTTISH RECORDS (CUSTODY)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Prime Minister (1) for what periods Home Office records and papers relating to Scotland are still retained in England; and for what purpose;
(2) why papers and records relating to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland for the period 1724–1808 are still retained in England; and when they will be returned to Scotland;
(3) why Scottish State papers subsequent to 1709 are still retained in England; and when they will be returned to Scotland.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Certain records and papers in which Scotland has an interest, including those referred to by the hon. and gallant Member as relating to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, are preserved in England among the records of the Home Office, under the Public Record Office Acts, 1838 to 1898, save in so far as the Master of the Rolls, pursuant to the discretion conferred upon him by Section 5 (1) of the Public Records (Scotland) Act, 1937, may consent to the transmission to the Keeper of the Registers and Records of Scotland of such of them as relate exclusively or mainly to Scotland. I understand that the Master of the Rolls in the exercise of this statutory discretion has not thought it proper to give his consent to the transmission of some of these records to Scotland, as they form


part of the Home Office records and he does not consider it right to break up departmental records which are always regarded as indivisible. In several cases where this objection does not apply, records have been transferred to Scotland.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply as far as I understood it, may I ask what possible interest to the Home Office the records of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland could be; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now 621 years since England promised to give these documents back, and would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that even for a Government Department that is rather a long delay?

The Prime Minister: I must admire the anticipation of the people of Scotland who, apparently, asked somewhere about the year 1300 for the records of something that did not take place until 1724–1808. With regard to the interest of the Home Office, that Question obviously should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The fact of the matter is that by statute this matter is entirely in the discretion of the Master of the Rolls. I have no power whatever to interfere with his discretion.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: As the Master of the Rolls is a purely English official, what has he to do with Scottish records?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Having regard to the large number of Conservative Governments that have ruled this country in the last 621 years, can my right hon. Friend explain how this matter has suddenly become urgent?

NEWFOUNDLAND (MEMORANDUM)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Prime Minister if the request by the Responsible Government League of Newfoundland that their memorial should be submitted to the Prime Ministers' Conference was granted; and what reply he has sent to the League.

The Prime Minister: The Governor of Newfoundland has been asked to inform the Responsible Government League that their memorandum was received, but that

it was not possible for it to be considered by the Meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Mr. Gammans: Does the Prime Minister realise that there is very strong feeling on this matter in Newfoundland, and would it not have been appropriate that this question, which concerns the Commonwealth as a whole, should have been discussed at the Conference?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think that it would not have been appropriate. Under the general practice relating to Commonwealth conferences, matters put on the Agenda are those that are of a common interest and direct concern to all. I do not think that the majority of the members were interested in this question.

SCLEROSIS (RESEARCH)

Mr. Janner: asked the Lord President of the Council what research is being undertaken on the disease of disseminated sclerosis; at which hospitals such research is being carried out; and how far Government supervision or financial assistance is given to such research.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Observations on cases of this distressing disease are constantly being made by neurologists in hospitals throughout the country, in the hope of gaining a better understanding of its cause and nature or of improving its treatment. Special investigations are at present in progress at the Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, and at the Middlesex Hospital in London. Much research on the subject has been done in the past, with Government aid and otherwise. Such aid has not been sought for either of the special investigations just mentioned; but support will be forthcoming, if required, for exploiting any promising new idea on the subject.

Mr. Janner: In view of the terrible nature of this disease, would my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that as much research as is necessary is taking place at present and will he encourage as much research as is possible?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, certainly. I will encourage all the research that is


possible and promising. My hon. Friend must appreciate that one must be selective as to a promising line of research. We are on the look-out for it. I fully agree with him about the terrible nature of this disease. We will do all we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Control of Engagement Order

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons have been directed to work under the Control of Engagement Order, 1947; and how many places have been filled by local employment offices since the order came into effect.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Between 6th October, 1947, when the Control of Engagement Order came into effect and the end of September, 1948, 4,519,000 vacancies were filled by the Employment Exchanges. Of this total 551,000 were first preference vacancies. During this period 19 men and 10 women were directed to employment. These figures exclude directions issued to workers normally employed in agriculture and coalmining requiring them to remain within their industry.

Mr. Shephard: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that direction of labour in peace-time is thoroughly unBritish; further, does he consider that the direction of 29 persons is sufficient justification for the retention of this Order?

Mr. Isaacs: It is rather difficult to understand whether hon. Gentlemen opposite want the Order or do not want the Order. The fact is that we found 551,000 British workmen who were quite willing to take the job they were urged to take in the national interest.

Coal Industry

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he took to publish his decision to permit coal miners to leave the industry within three months of entrance; when, and in what form, this decision was signified to the National Coal Board; and why similar relaxation from control was not extended to agricultural workers.

Mr. Isaacs: There has been no recent relaxation of this control. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary

announced on 24th July, 1946, that special consideration would be given to new entrants to the coalmining industry, so that no one need be deterred from giving coalmining a fair trial by the fear that he would be compulsorily held in it against his will. The trial period was originally six months, but this was reduced to three months in April, 1948, after discussion with the National Coal Board and National Union of Mineworkers, both of whom were informed by letter of the change. No general publicity has been given to this practice but potential recruits are told of it individually. The circumstances of recruitment for agricultural work are not the same, and no similar practice was felt to be necessary.

Sir J. Mellor: Is it not important that this should be widely published, so that potential recruits to the coal mines should know what they will be allowed to do if they enter the industry?

Mr. Isaacs: We consider that the posting of information in the employment exchanges, and the advising of applicants there, since any applicant for work has to go there, was satisfactory in the circumstances.

Sir J. Mellor: I did not refer to people who have already applied for work in the coal industry. I am talking about the general public, and particularly about young men who might be willing to go into the mines if they knew that they would be permitted to leave in three months if they wanted.

Mr. Isaacs: We might post the information at Eton and Harrow and get a little help from there.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 8th November—Consideration of the proposed Amendments to the Standing Orders on Public Business and on Private Business necessitated by the new system of Exchequer Equalisation Grants provided for by the Local Government Act, 1948.
Further progress will be made with the Colonial Stock Bill and the Debts Clearing Offices Bill; and consideration of the Motions to approve the Clearing Offices (Italy) Amendment; the Silk Duties (No. 1); the Import Duties (Imperial Preference); the Ottawa Duties (Geneva Agreement) Orders.
Tuesday, 9th November—Second Reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill. A Motion will be proposed to refer this Bill to the Scottish Standing Committee for Second Reading under the provisions of Standing Order No. 60.
Second Reading of the Water (Scotland) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Wednesday, 10th November—Second Reading of the Wireless Telegraphy Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Consideration of the Motion relating to the Army and Air Force (Women's Service) (Adaptation of Enactments) Order.
Thursday, 11th November—Second Reading of the Special Roads Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Friday, 12th November—Second Reading of the Prize Bill, and further progress with the Recall of Army and Air Force Pensioners Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: While the Scottish hon. Members on this side of the House have no objection to taking the two Scottish Bills as early as possible, we hope that an adequate interval will be allowed before the Committee stage is taken upstairs, because we have not yet had time to consult the local authorities who are directly interested in both these Measures.

Mr. Morrison: I think that is a reasonable request, and I will try to make suitable arrangements through the usual channels.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I ask my right hon. Friend, having regard to the demonstration which we have just had from overseas, and which is no doubt valid elsewhere, of the utter unreliability of popular polls of public opinion on certain questions, whether time can be found for the introduction of a one-clause Bill to abolish the death penalty?

Mr. Tom Brown: In regard to the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, is my right hon.

Friend aware that there is a great deal of feeling in the country regarding the power of entry into the homes of the people, and will he make a statement?

Mr. Morrison: I must be careful not to get on to any point of substance, but I do appreciate the point raised by my hon. Friend. There is a real difficulty here, with the situation as it is, in relation to aircraft and ships, and it is a great nuisance to the ordinary users of broadcasting. I will only say that we want to be very broadminded about this, and that we should welcome the assistance of the House in trying to find a solution, without any impropriety regarding the privacy of the home. I assure the House that we will only act in that spirit, and that we hope to have the assistance of all sides of the House in this matter.

Mr. Silverman: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Morrison: I think this poll situation has reached a very interesting stage, and it will have repercussions on another Measure which is probably coming before the House. I do not think, however, that I had better undertake to bring in the Bill which my hon. Friend wants.

Mr. Wyatt: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is the Government's intention to have a Debate on Commonwealth Affairs at an early date, or an opportunity of raising Commonwealth problems, as we have not had a Debate on the subject for a very long time?

Mr. Morrison: That would be a suitable subject for a Supply Day, but I do not know that the Government can add to the official special communiqué issued at the end of the Conference. Whether that would provide sufficient material for a Debate I am not certain, but it must be appreciated that the Conference was a private one between Governments. I am not sure that it would provide a suitable subject for a Debate.

Mr. Wyatt: While agreeing that the Conference was private, is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many hon. Members who have a desire to give expression to ideas on Commonwealth matters other than those raised at the Conference?

Mr. Morrison: I think my hon. Friend had better use his persuasive powers in the right quarter so as to use a Supply Day for the purpose.

Orders of the Day — WAGES COUNCILS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.36 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very short Bill and, in a moment or two, I shall describe the material changes it makes. Before doing so, I should like to give to the House a brief retrospect of the tenor of this legislation. It was in 1909 that we had the first Trade Boards Act in this country. That was a very welcome and gallant attempt to deal with the great scourge of sweated industries that surrounded us. There were many sad cases of home work at disastrous wages, and the coming of the first Trade Boards Act had two great effects. First, it lifted the standard of earnings of the people in industry; and, secondly, it protected the good employers, because, in three or four of the industries first covered by the 1909 Act, there were very good firms of high reputation who were treating their people decently, but who found great difficulty in carrying on their own good conditions in face of the discouraging amount of sweated labour throughout the country. That Act has been very useful.
A little later, in 1918, we had our second Trade Boards Act, which followed the Report of the Whitley Committee. The Whitley Committee, as my colleagues will remember, was presided over by the then Speaker of the House of Commons, and the results of its conclusions have been of inestimable value to this country. The Committee recommended that trade boards should be established in the less-organised trades, pending the development of such a degree of organisation as would justify the establishment of a joint industrial council. Looking back, this has been justified, because we now have a great system of joint industrial councils. Unfortunately, there are still cases in which a trade board is required. The Act of 1918 pretty well re-enacted the 1909 Act in its entirety, but with the addition that it gave power to trade boards to fix overtime rates, piecework basis time rates, and guaranteed time rates.
The next stage in the development of this system was the Holidays with Pay Act, 1938. This Act related to the trade boards to the extent that it gave them power, which they did not have before, of prescribing for holidays with pay, and that fitted in with a provision that the holiday to be given was to be a maximum of one week with pay. That maximum of one week was provided, though in some industries it was split up into three days in one part of the year and three days in another, but it was a step along the right road.
We next come to 1934, when the road haulage industry came under investigation. It was felt that something should be done to improve conditions there. The voluntary machinery of collective bargaining was established, but so wide were the ramifications, and so varied were the interests of the parties in the industry that it proved completely ineffective. Therefore, in 1936, the Baillie Committee was established. Its instructions were to examine the position in regard to the regulation of wages and conditions of service of workers in the industry. That committee, in its report, expressed the view that a trade board
would be too limited in scope and too restrictive in its powers to meet the requirements of the industry.
Shortly afterwards we had the Road Haulage Wages Act.
The Bill which we are bringing forward today proposes, for several reasons, to bring to an end Part I of the Road Haulage Wages Act. The first reason is that it has a very complicated structure. It provides for the establishment of a central board and 11 area boards. That means not only a very unwieldy structure, but a great deal of delay in getting a decision from the central board which may have to consult all the area boards. As the House will remember, there was, two or three years ago, a good deal of opinion expressed in this House that wages councils, and so on, were too slow in reaching decisions. This was one of the slowest of them all because of these difficulties. They have themselves expressed the desire to be brought under the Wages Councils Act.
The main provisions of Part I of the Road Haulage Wages Act covered workers who were working with "A" and "B" licensed vehicles,


with powers to fix minimum remuneration, holidays with pay, and to make recommendations about industrial conditions in the industry. The second part gave the opportunity for complaints about unfair wages to workers on "C" licensed vehicles to be made to the Minister of Labour. In the Second Reading Debate on that Bill in 1938, the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Ernest Brown, said:
It takes a form which is new in our industrial legislation, because of the rapid development of this form of industrial transport. It will not be the last Bill, although it is the latest, as development and change are taking place with startling speed in the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1938; Vol. 335, c. 164.]
Those developments and changes have taken place, and it is a tribute to the Minister of that time that he could look forward and appreciate that what he was doing then was not the end, but only the beginning of things to come later.
That brings us to the Wages Councils Act of 1945. That Measure was introduced by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in December, 1944, and contained the following provisions. It re-enacted the Trade Boards Acts of 1909 and 1918, but reconstituted the trade boards as wages councils. It enabled councils to have the right, authority, and the duty to fix statutory minimum remuneration, including a guaranteed wage, holidays with pay, but without restriction to the previous maximum of one week. It also provided additional powers whereby a wages council could be established subject to a recommendation by an independent commission where the commission is of opinion that the voluntary machinery is not adequate or is likely to become inadequate—so very important to the workers' side and, I think, to the employers' side also—and, as a result, a reasonable standard of remuneration is not being or will not be maintained. Therefore, they have the authority to deal with things as they are, and as they might be expected to be in the future.
Again, I should like to refer to a short sentence of the Minister at the time he introduced his Bill. He then said that the Bill not only widened trade boards legislation, but was a declaration by Parliament that the conception of what was known as the "sweated industry" was

past. If I may, I should here like to interpose a personal note. In 1909, I together with a section of my industry, was associated with a trade board. These trade boards have been of tremendous advantage to all concerned. Not only have they improved working conditions and wages, and prevented the undercutting of the decent employers, but they have been one of the most powerful means of bringing about a better industrial relationship. Instead of both sides meeting and sniping at each other, they sit down under the guidance of independent members, to whom too high a tribute cannot be paid for their patience, perseverance, guidance and counsel in helping both sides to argue a matter out to its conclusion, instead of tiring of argument and turning to the strike weapon.
Today, we have 59 wages councils in 51 trades. The other eight are made up of eight trades with separate councils in Scotland. Therefore, we get the position where we have this great organisation flourishing and doing great service. It would be too wearisome to read out the long list of trades, but when one considers the conditions that existed in those industries before the councils came into effect, and the conditions that exist now, it is clear that, in passing this legislation, Parliament was doing a good thing for the country. May I say, in passing, that it was encouraging to those who were trying to fight against the bad conditions in industry to find that Parliament itself was not in the mood to support bad conditions and bad wages, and that, from time to time, this House has used its opportunities and its authority to give protection to those not properly able to protect themselves.
This new Bill has two main purposes. One is to convert the Road Haulage Central Wages Board into a wages council. This is submitted with the complete agreement of the present board and the National Joint Advisory Council for industry. Both sides of the industry, with its independent members, are parties to this change. At the same time, however, we take the opportunity of asking the House to give us certain minor amendments to the Act, based on the experience of the last few years. Such changes are set out in the Bill, and I will briefly refer to them. I think the House would prefer me to deal with them in a general form, because, in Committee, there will


be ample opportunity for going into them in detail.
The most important transfer at the moment is the placing in the Wages Councils Bill of that provision of the Road Haulage Act under which inspectors are able to require the production of a vehicle's licence or defence permit which will enable them to verify whether a worker is within the scope of the Bill or not. The inspectors' duty is not merely restricted to saying whether the wages paid are the proper ones or not. They are called upon to say whether a person doing a job is within the scope of the Bill or not. The fact that inspectors will be able to do that, will prevent a great deal of misunderstanding and difficulty.
The next important change is in Clause 3. This gives the Minister power to widen the field of operation of wages councils. At present, we can make an order removing workers from the field of operation of one council and transferring them to another existing wages council. Many of these fields of operation are very close to each other. We have, for instance, wholesale clothing and bespoke clothing, millinery, headwear, and so on. Many of those industries are closely allied to one another. There may be instances where, due to the development and improvement of industrial methods, neither of the councils would be suitable for the workers. Therefore, we ask for very minor power, not merely to remove workers or industries from one wages council to another, but to create, where necessary, a further council suitable for the purpose. Viewing the whole field and scope of the wages councils, I hope we shall be able to reduce the 59 by some such measure as this Bill to a much smaller number, because the fewer there are the fewer duties will fall on the Government Departments handling them and the less we shall need to call upon the independent person. Before I sit down I should like to say another word about these helpful people, the independent persons.
Clause 3 (3) will enable a commission of inquiry where they recommend the establishment of more than one wages council, to recommend the establishment of a co-ordinating committee. It might be that we shall find an industry covered

by this new Bill which will require a council, say, in England and Wales and, in Scotland, and it is desired that there shall be power to recommend the establishment of a central co-ordinating committee to keep these councils running in harmony so that they shall not cross, one against the other.
In Clause 4, we have a minor change, but one which is rather important. It extends to the standing joint bodies, such as the joint industrial council, the power to make application for the abolition of a wages council. At present, each side must apply, but we feel that if the standing joint body has reached a common agreement and wants to apply for the abolition of a wages council, then it should have the right to make such an application. There has been one such case in recent years in connection with the furniture trade. A few years ago, the position in some factories in the furniture trade led to very poor conditions, and very poor work, too. A wages council was established; both sides met, and they came to understand each other so well by sitting down and talking that they created their joint industrial council, and came along and said to us, "We do not want any more of your statutory enforcement of our wages scales; we have enough understanding in our industry to do it by voluntary means." That wages council was, therefore, wound up; they are carrying on by voluntary arrangements and, I understand, getting on very well indeed. If we can get more of this kind of thing by agreement, getting outside the wages council into the field of voluntary industrial harmony, it will be to the advantage of all concerned. That, then, is the slight change we want to make here.
Clause 5 (1) deals with the reports made to the Minister by a Commission of Inquiry. The new Clause 5 (1) requires the Minister to publish every report sent to him by a commission and not only, as at present, a report which includes a recommendation to establish a wages council. We ask for the power, which I think everybody will agree should be given, to publish the report of a commission which recommends that there should not be a wages council established. The public will thus know that a commission has been appointed, has considered the matter and made its report. It is rather difficult if we can publish only


where we get a positive instruction and not where we get a negative instruction. We do, however, add this proviso: where the Minister refers a report back to the commission for reconsideration, as he may do under a Section of the existing Act, he shall not be bound to publish the first report of the commission until he publishes the further report. In other words, the report coming to the Minister shall not be considered final, if he thinks it necessary to send it back with some observations or for some clarification. The whole report shall be published together; that is, the first part and the second part together.
We put another proposal in Clause 5 (2). It is to clarify the duty of a commission appointed after the receipt of objections by the Minister. Let us say that a commission of inquiry has met to consider an application for a wages council; it has drafted its recommendation; it has been made public. Its recommendation has been published, in accordance with the Act, and objections invited. The Minister may receive some objections which seem worthy of consideration. He can refer them to a commission, but we want to make it clear that when a commission has been appointed to consider the objections it should be restricted to considering the objections and should not go over the whole field again from the time when the first inquiry was started.
The objections notified to the commission need not include any which the Minister thinks fit to exclude on either of following grounds, which I shall explain. The objections from the industry—from one side or the other—come in, but the Minister need not refer them back to a commission in the case of an objection to a draft order to give effect to a wages council recommendation if the objection had, in his opinion, already been made to the commission of inquiry which made the recommendation and had been expressly dealt with in the report embodying that recommendation. We say that if the objection has been considered and the matter decided, then the Minister ought to have the power not to send it back for examination. The second point is one which I think any Minister may find difficult to decide. He need not send forward an objection if he considers it frivolous. Of course, what

one man thinks frivolous some others consider to be quite the opposite.
Another small point, in Clause 5 (3) is that wages council orders are statutory instruments. Under the old Act they were to be published by the Minister. These statutory instruments are now to be published by the King's Printers of Acts of Parliament under the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946. This Clause, therefore, relieves the Minister of the obligation of publishing, as publication will be made by the King's Printers. The short sentence referred to, therefore, should come out of the Act.
Clause 6 (1) may seem rather involved when one looks at it, but its real purpose is to make provision for more clear instructions relating to the publication by the council of its proposals and the posting of such proposals by employers. What we want to ensure is that the council must make the widest possible distribution of its notices, and its proposals, and also that the position shall be clear to the employers, that the council shall publish these notices and issue them in such a way as to give the widest possible opportunity of information for those concerned. Many will remember that in the early days of the Factories Acts, when these notices began to be placed in the factories, one could always find the notice behind the door in the dark entrance to the factory where nobody could see it and nobody could read it. Reference to the local public clock by which the factory clock was governed was always written pretty small and nobody could read it unless he had a magnifying glass and a searchlight. The spirit in these industries has changed and is such that they are themselves anxious to give the widest possible authority for publication and themselves request that we should give them more power to do so.
An important change in this Bill is contained in Clause 6 (2). The 1945 Act provided that there should be a minimum of 21 days between the publication of proposals and the closing date for objections being received. In the same Act and in the same Section it provided that, during the period of the emergency, in the war and following the war, that period should be 14 days. We want to cut out the 21 days altogether and make it definitely 14 days. We have made very careful inquiries amongst chairmen of boards


and different councils and they are satisfied that 14 days, as a minimum, should be substituted for 21 days. In any case, that does not prevent the council from giving a longer period if they think fit. As that was a point upon which we had a great deal of difficulty some time back I hope the House will readily consent to this change being made.
It may be that those objections which are lodged within the 14 days constitute a very sound justification for making amendments to the proposals and the Minister may feel that the Amendments made are of such a character as to need republication. Thus we get another 14 days. Under the Road Haulage Wages Act, where we got the 21 days, sometimes many weeks elapsed from the original date before all the routine steps were taken and everything cleared away. Therefore, we want to insert 14 days as a definite minimum period instead of 21.
There is one point to which I think I should draw attention, and that is the giving of notice of an order and of its contents. At present the wages council must give notice of an order and of its contents. There may, however, be other matters affecting the operation of an order, for example, where an order provides for wages to vary according to some sliding scale arrangements. Sliding scale arrangements are rather coming into fashion and being adopted in industry. Therefore, we want the wages councils to have sufficient authority to publish an order and the contents, and also other matters and instructions relating to its operation. These are the main changes which the Bill brings about.
In conclusion, I should like to say that it is because of the co-operation that exists between the two sides of industry that they want to come under the general umbrella of the wages councils structure, and to keep in harmony with it. There is another factor. Many of these councils overlap. It is quite obvious that people employed in road haulage may also be employed in another industry. For example, there may be a fellow engaged in road haulage and in a paper bag factory. It is a bit awkward if there are to be two or more wages councils covering the same class of work. This Bill will help to overcome that difficulty.
I submit that the Bill will reduce delays, that it will ensure full and adequate notification of all points which need to be considered, that it will further develop the spirit of goodwill, and the reliance on collective bargaining, and that it will assist the promotion of the good industrial relationship that has been fostered already. It protects the good employer and it protects the standard of wages and the working conditions of the worker. I have said a word already about the independent members, and I should like to say a further word about them. It is the settled policy to arrange for an independent member of a wages council to serve on more than one wages council, and, so far as possible on related wages councils; so that we may, for instance, have the chairman of the clothing trade wages council as deputy chairman of the shirt-making wages council, or some other council related to the clothing trade wages council.
Therefore, we shall have the chairman and his two colleagues serving on more than one council having some major or minor relationship, each with the other. An attempt is thus made to see that we do not get distortion, and widely different wages and working conditions. It may be that the wages and working conditions in one trade may be brought up to a higher level, equal to that of another, and that the people in the latter trade may say that they have always been in front of the people in the other trade, and that they, therefore, must have their conditions advanced, too. From that point of view wages councils have performed a very useful piece of work, in getting something like a basis of uniformity. They have done much good work in that direction, and the ladies and gentlemen who have served on the councils have shown a great spirit of public service, and have encouraged the employers and the workers to make their cases on the merits of those cases.
Many of us on this side of the House will remember that in the old days we used to make our case by saying, "Our people want it," and leave the matter there, not arguing it beyond that. Now people have to show a good cause why such and such a thing should be done, and put up facts and figures. In the old days, employers, for their part, used to say, "We are not going to grant this,"


and then the workpeople would go on strike. Nowadays, both sides talk it over, and talking it over has brought about this spirit of good relationship in industry. Wages councils have been valuable. They have proved to the full the optimism of those who introduced the Acts of 1909 and 1945. I trust the House will give a Second Reading to this further Measure, and assist us in amending it in Committee if amendment is found necessary.

Mr. Fernyhough: Has my right hon. Friend given any consideration to bringing within the scope of this Bill class C licence holders, as it appeared to be the, intention originally, to do so at a subsequent date.

Mr. Isaacs: Not at this moment, but we shall be very glad in Committee to listen to any proposal to that end.

4.5 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I welcome this Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I am sure that everyone in the House, wherever he sits, would like me to express from the House our gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman, not only for the way he has expounded this Bill, but for the spirit which lay behind that expounding, and for the admirable examples of his own experience with which he illustrated his speech. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I thought a little historically in approaching this Bill. It is interesting—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree—how often it occurs in this House—it is one of those mysteries which people outside it find difficulty in appreciating—that after the tumult of a three-line Whip Debate, the next day we come to consider a subject on which we are in general agreement, and with regard to which all parties can show a desire in the past to improve the position of the nation. I am sure that no one in the House will grudge one footnote of mine to history—that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) who introduced the Trade Boards Act of 1909; and it was noticeable that when the Act of 1945 was introduced the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a quotation from the speech that my right hon. Friend made 36 years before.
I agree with the Minister of Labour that the procedure which was introduced in 1909, and has been improved on the

various occasions he mentioned, has been a good procedure. It showed a typically British sense of working compromise because it provided for legal enforcement of the wages which were ultimately recommended, and autonomous boards with independent members to help in arriving at the wages which were to be enforced. That has, as I have said, proved a good working rule.
There is just one point on which I personally should be grateful, as this Bill goes on, to get the views of hon. Members wherever they sit. It has, of course, always been the practice that the results which were come to by the various boards, and afterwards the councils, were arrived at in the light of the particular issues and questions of the industry or trade they were considering. I think we have now come to a stage in our general economic outlook when we have to consider the value and importance of a non-parochial attitude in approaching these questions. It may be necessary—and this is an entirely non-party point—from whatever angle the problem is approached, to consider the wider question of the national interest and the national economic position. That is a very difficult matter. I appreciate the difficulty, because we do not want to detract from the close attention to the special details of the industry. Still, it is something, which, I think, we have to encourage and to engraft on the machinery which we have.
There is one other aspect of the historical side of this matter which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned and which I think is interesting. Apart from the Trade Boards Acts of 1909 and 1918, we had in the ensuing years, a procedure which brings about these results, approached from the point of view of various industries. We had the Agriculture Wages Act, 1924 and, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Road Haulage Act, 1938. During the war he will remember—as I certainly do, because the number of speeches which I made on it still brings the blush of shame to my face—the Catering Wages Act, 1942. As Solicitor-General, I had the honour and pleasure of assisting the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to pilot the Bill through the House. It is interesting, having seen this individual approach, to find that today we are, in the case of one of these


matters, bringing it back into the general line and fitting it in.
I entirely agree with that suggestion. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has made out his case that the procedure under the Road Haulage Act, 1938, was complicated and did, in some cases, make for slowness, and that the alteration which this Bill makes will be an improvement. May I say as an old colleague of Mr. Ernest Brown, that I very much appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about him today. I am sure that his words will give great pleasure to an old colleague of us both. It is one of those generous acts which mark British political life, and I thank him for it.
With regard to the various proposals in the Bill, I have dealt with the one for bringing into line the procedure of the Road Haulage Act, 1938. I think that the other proposals are also justified. The Minister should have the right to create separate wages councils where these are necessary. As he pointed out, he has already the right to remove people from one wage council to another, and, therefore, it seems logical that he should have the right where necessary to establish a separate council. I also welcome—and I am sure that everyone who has taken an interest in these matters will welcome—the suggestions which he put forward as to the possible use of the power at the suggestion of some joint industrial council, or something of that kind, for disposing of unnecessary councils in the way he indicated.
I think that he will agree with me that the remaining matters are largely procedural, but, in each case, they are, I think, an improvement of the procedure already there. I must say that he has enlightened me as to the effect of the coming down to the 14 days' procedure, and I shall study what he said with care when I see it in print. Although I am not, of course, binding myself not to have second thoughts on Committee, because obviously we shall have to consider this point, I say quite frankly that I appreciate the object of making permanent the 14 days' period and not reverting to the 21.
The Bill is another step on a well-trodden path. I agree, despite the difference of our political views, that

there was a time when the initial steps on that path were a crying necessity, but I am glad that, looking back over its course, we can say that it has always been a path which people from all political quarters and all corners of industry—I am deliberately not saying "sides," for the moment— were ready to help. So long as we can keep that feeling—and it is our most earnest desire that it should be maintained—a great service to industry will be given. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out to us on many occasions the importance of free, frank and friendly negotiations at the present time. He has today underlined the importance of independent and informed consideration. So long as we proceed along these lines, which are logical, British and friendly, I believe that he need not regret our share in shaping the industrial conditions of the future.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Like the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), I welcome this Bill. If the House does not mind my saying so, I took a little part in this House many years ago in trying to get established in the largest of all our industries some joint working arrangement between employers and employed, namely, the distributive trades. The opposition we had to encounter at that time was fairly strong. There are about 24 million people employed in the distributive trades; and I am pleased now, after many years' experience, to learn that a great deal has been achieved both for the employers and employed through those joint negotiations.
There is one thing in the Bill which perhaps my right hon. Friend would be good enough to answer. He tells us of the power of a joint industrial council to apply for the abolition of a wages council. Having gravitated up to the point of agreement and everything in the garden is beautiful—they may wish to abolish that machinery. I am probably one of the oldest trade union officials in the House, and I have seen many turns of the wheel when we have abolished certain wages machinery to find later on that it ought to be restored. I want, therefore, an answer to the point as to whether, if an organisation requests the abolition of these councils, and finds later on that it has made a mistake, it will be entitled


then to apply for a restoration of the machinery.
I do not want to dwell unduly on this Bill. I welcome it very much. Members of the House who have been here for some time will bear in mind—and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give attention to the point which I am about to make—that there has grown up in this country—and from one angle it is a very desirable growth—the position in which employers and employed come to an arrangement between themselves outside and Parliament is then asked to put a rubber stamp on their agreements. We have had several cases in the recent past of that kind.
While I am a trade unionist, I want, above all, to be sure that Parliament will have the final say in everything that is happening in that connection, and, if Parliament thought fit, that it can decide certain issues arising from the operation of these councils. That is to say that I should like my right hon. Friend to assure me that there is nothing in this Bill in any shape or form taking away the right of Parliament to determine what is best for the nation as a whole and, of course, for the people involved in these arrangements. The power of trade unionism and employers' organisations has grown enormously in my lifetime; and it is all to the good that it should be so. But I repeat that I still believe that Parliament is paramount over all those organisations, and I should like to be assured that in this Bill there is nothing which detracts from the power of Parliament to decide to do what it likes in connection in these matters.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am very pleased indeed to have the opportunity of taking part in what I feel to be a very important Debate on an even more important Bill. I am pleased particularly because I have the honour to represent an area in the East End of London—Upton, West Ham—where quite a large number of the resident workers are engaged in the all-important industry of road haulage. Many of them are engaged in conveying goods all over the country from the London Docks. For that reason it gives me pleasure to speak this afternoon in support of this Bill. Equally, I am pleased because I happen to be a member

of a very old, well-established and great trade union, which has a large number of members engaged in the road haulage industry. I refer to the National Union of General and Municipal Workers. Speaking on behalf of both my constituents and the members of my trade union, I feel sure I can say that they, in turn, will warmly welcome this Measure.
As we have heard from the Minister, the purpose of the Bill is to bring into being a Wages Council in place of the Road Haulage Central Wages Board. I believe it is true to say that everybody agrees that that board has done really good work since it came into existence; but it is also true to say that because of the ramifications of that board, there has of necessity, sometimes been delay which has, in my opinion, caused great difficulties to the employers on the one hand and to trade union officials and the workers in the industry on the other, in bringing about settlements on wages, conditions, or whatever may have been before the board. The Road Haulage Central Wages Board has served its purpose and is now hopelessly and completely out of date. The Minister referred to the recent strike in the road haulage industry. We all remember that large unofficial strike which took place not so very long ago. It was, I think, due partly to the delay, and not to the fault of anybody in particular; it was caused because of the ramifications of that Road Haulage Central Wages Board.
I have had some very recent experience of working as a member of what is I believe the newest wages council. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the newest wages councils are those which the right hon. Gentleman referred to under the Catering Wages Act. I am confident that those wages councils have done an enormous amount of good. I am more concerned perhaps with the good they have done for the workers; but they have, in fact, done an enormous amount of good for both employers and workers in that industry. Therefore, I feel that the wages council envisaged in this Bill can be of great help and assistance to the workers and employers engaged in road haulage.
Whilst I give wholehearted support to this Measure and to the whole conception of wages councils, I do not believe that wages councils are the ideal; they are not


the perfect answer in industrial negotiations, and I was particularly pleased to see Clause 4, which gives employers and the workers the opportunity, through a joint industrial council or by joint approach, to have this Measure abolished, if that is felt necessary by both sides of the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has the great honour of being the oldest trade union official in this House. Far be it from me to try to disagree on experience with such an old and valuable trade union member. But I believe I have the honour—if it is indeed an honour—to be the youngest ex-trade union official in this House; until recently I was still actively engaged as an official on behalf of my union. I feel, quite frankly, that the joint industrial council procedure is far superior to any wages board or any State legislative body, whether it be a wages council, a wages board or a trade board. I think I could even get the support of the Minister of Labour for that statement, because it is a statement of fact. The Minister will bear me out when I say that there has been the least industrial unrest in industries where there is in existence, and has been for a long time, joint industrial council machinery.
The Minister mentioned his own industry; not his present one, but his previous one. We in the trade union movement all know of the magnificent efforts he made to get the printing industry on to a proper basis, so far as industrial negotiation is concerned. That is the industry with, if not the longest, at least a very long joint industrial council record; and in that industry there have been fewer industrial disputes than in any other. From the workers' point of view the wages and conditions now are among the finest in the country and from the employers' point of view, they have a happy and contented band of workers, and, what is more important to them their profits are quite good.
Therefore, from my short experience, I think that the ultimate aim should be the joint industrial council procedure. I hope that this Bill will not be on the Statute Book for very long. I make an appeal to the employers in this vast industry to come forward now and approach the union general secretaries

with a view to seeing whether they cannot set up the voluntary industrial council machinery. After all, there are only two unions, I believe, affected, the General and Municipal Workers Union, of which I have the honour to be a member, and the Transport and General Workers Union.

Mr. Scollan: And the Scottish Horse and Motormen's Union.

Mr. Lewis: I have found, and I think all of my trade union colleagues have found, that in the long run the voluntary J.I.C. machinery is more beneficial than any State machinery which has previously existed or is suggested. Perhaps I may take the liberty, on behalf of the wider trade union movement, of telling the Minister that he can be assured, from the trade unionist point of view and from the trade union officials' point of view, of every help and assistance in making this a successful Measure when it has been placed on the Statute Book.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: So far, everyone who has taken part in this Debate has been either a trade union official or a lawyer. We have had, as usual, a most interesting speech from my very old colleague the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), whose work we all know. We have also had another interesting speech from the hon. Member for Upton (Mr. A. Lewis). I hope that in the remarks I wish to make I shall not be more controversial than those of the hon. Member for Upton, whose compliments to the Government were, I thought, sometimes veiled. I wondered when he would find himself in conflict with the Government Front Bench, but in point of fact he only came into conflict with his hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) because he had left out a well-known and highly thought of Scottish union in connection with this most important subject.
I am not looking at this Bill from the point of view of a trade unionist or of an employer. I think it is only right, when we are discussing something that affects both the workers and employers in industry, that an ordinary outsider should state his views. All who read the Press on these matters realise the vital danger to industry and trade of any


delays in reaching agreements on any matters which may be in dispute. The object of this Bill is to try to simplify the procedure by which disputes can be settled, and from that point of view, I can support it. I can also give it my support because it continues the policy which has been followed in this country for very many years. The Minister paid a sincere tribute to the work done by Mr. Ernest Brown, who was born in my constituency and is very highly thought of in the West Country.
I wish that the Minister would make that type of speech rather more often outside this House and pay tribute to the enormous amount of work which has been done in this field by the Liberal and Conservative Parties, instead of constantly pointing out that things were not so good between the wars. It is a curious fact that in this Debate we have had mention made of three or four considerable social Measures, including the 1909 Act. How many times have Members opposite made speeches against my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) saying that he is against the workers. Yet that Measure was brought in by him? Then we have the 1933 Act, and the two Acts mentioned in this Bill in 1938. There is the Measure for holidays with pay, which is the greatest single step that has been taken for the benefit of the whole population by any party, and that naturally was the Conservative Party. In every one of these cases the story is very different from the stuff that is published from Transport House. Why cannot the same fairness as has been shown today be shown also in political speeches made outside this House?
The first question which arises out of the earlier Clauses of this Bill is precisely where the representatives of the employers and of the Government come in, and how they are to be selected. I think that we should be given some explanation, particularly in view of the large amount of Government control over the transport industry. Many Members in this House may know the exact position in this regard, but at the moment the employers do not know precisely where they stand. I think it is a great pity that we should not be made more fully acquainted with the Government's intentions along these lines. I should not like to accuse the Minister of shuffling,

but he seemed to be a little ca' canny in avoiding having anything to do with the Government adopting the point of view of the employers.
In Clause 5, there is mention of the publication of reports. It is nice to know that the Government are more anxious to give information on this matter than they are on some other things. I should like to know how many reports we may expect to be issued every year. I shall do nothing to discourage their issue, but we should like to be told how many we might expect, because each one must take a considerable time to prepare and no small quantity of paper. The limitation of time which is mentioned in Clause 6 (2) was pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). My right hon. and learned Friend has said that he will look into the legal aspect of this matter, which is undoubetdly necessary. However much it may be necessary, in some cases, to give longer notice—such as in rural districts, where 14 days might be too short—I should like to see the time reduced as much as possible, because speed is essential to justice in this case as in every other.
When we consider the position of the ordinary worker in the road haulage industry there is one point that might be included in the Bill. Sometimes I get complaints about time schedules which compel a driver to go too fast. I mention this not only from the point of view of the driver himself, or his company, but with the safety of the ordinary public in mind. It is right that Members of Parliament should say that it is part of the duty of the road haulage boards, or the new councils, to see that time schedules are so arranged as to cause no danger to the public by drivers, or to the health of the drivers. This is a point which I put forward as affecting my constituency, as an ordinary Tory M.P., and not one of the plutocrats of the Labour Party, who are so powerful today in their control of vast masses of men. I am not quite sure where Scotland comes into this question. Perhaps she might be included in one of the Clauses.

Mr. Scollan: That is about the only thing a Tory would give away.

Mr. Williams: Perhaps I had better not pursue that point any further. There is, however, one first-class Scottish Member


of Parliament on these benches at the moment, and I feel sure he is capable of looking after the interests of Scottish transport workers, as I look after the interests of ordinary men and women in my division. I am glad that the Bill does not follow the usual Socialistic lines, but follows the thought of Liberals who come eventually into the fold of the Tory Party, as did the present Leader of the Conservative Party. There is also the case of Mr. Ernest Brown, who led the National Liberals so well when other Liberals took no interest whatever in these social reforms.
These are the reasons why I support the Bill, though I must add that it ought to have been brought in last year or even earlier. It would have had a very much better effect on industry than some of the stupid Measures which the Government have brought forward. I congratulate the Government on bringing it in now, and I hope it will prove of real value to the country. I hope that what I have said will not arouse opposition. On occasions of this sort I doubt whether it is in the interests of the House to have a number of expert speeches from various Members and trade unionists. Let us have the Second Reading as quickly as possible, unless there are more ordinary Members like myself who wish to speak.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: I am sure that road transport workers who read this Debate will read the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) with great interest, but will be wondering, by the time they get to the end of it, what attitude the hon. Member was really adopting towards this Measure. The hon. Member spread out his coat tails, but I do not propose to tread on them. I support the Bill because it is a first-class Bill. We have heard from the Minister and from the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) something of the history of this type of legislation, and it might also be well to remember that before the introduction of the Road Haulage Central Wages Board the road haulage industry was continually in trouble, particularly between the wars.
Unfortunately for me I was involved in a great many disputes which took place, but I am quite sure that the reason for

better conditions and for the new spirit of co-operation and conciliation is because in 1938 we got for the first time some more or less effective method of not only dealing with wages and conditions, but also of providing some discipline for both sides of the industry. I do not dispute for a moment that the lorry driver is a character on his own. He often went very wild in an attempt to insist that his particular grievances ought to be dealt with immediately. But it is equally true to say that on the other side, amongst the employers in the industry, there was an equal lack of discipline at any rate before 1938.
The Road Haulage Board after long struggles, as many of us know, have succeeded in bringing some discipline into both sides of the industry, which is to the good of the industry and for the economic benefit of the country. The only serious dispute we have had in road transport since the war really arose out of the long delay which inevitably occurred under the old machinery. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that this Bill will save the almost interminable delays, which seemed to the men to occur when matters affecting their wages, conditions and livelihood generally were under consideration. If it does that, this Bill will add further to the overall efficiency of the industry.
I believe that the wages board machinery is a much neater and tidier form of machinery for the industry. It is desired both by the men and the employers, who understand that it works more speedily and is safer, as it will have the effect of increasing the possibility of a unanimous agreement when the parties get round a table and discuss their grievances and troubles. By that method they will find agreement on the day to day problems that crop up. That can be accomplished without either side departing from their fundamental and deeply held beliefs. I have taken part in many discussions of this kind during the past 30 or 40 years and I have signed many agreements. I have not, however, regarded myself as surrendering the economic beliefs that I held, nor did the employers with whom I signed. They worked and produced harmony in the industry, and they made some provision for dealing with the inevitable troubles which arise in that, as well as in any kind of industry.
I believe that the wages council machinery is the most effective organisation which has so far been evolved, in the long struggle in this country to get this kind of machinery for dealing with industrial troubles of all kinds. One of my hon. Friends has referred to the fact that if both sides desire to ask for the abolition of the wages council, they are free to do so. Personally, I hope they will not. It is possible under an organisation like the wages council to get all the benefits of a free and harmonious understanding without abolishing the machinery, because what we are able to do now, might easily disappear in five or ten years when we get a new means of handling these things.
I am glad also to be able to support this Bill because it is another instance of the steadily growing practice in this country of dealing with industrial and economic matters, as they arise, on the basis of common sense. If the House will forgive me, I should like to give one personal illustration. I was, I admit, a very young man when I was appointed the first secretary of the workers' side of the first agricultural wages board in Essex. I had the duty of moving the resolution dealing with the settlement in regard to the first minimum wage for agricultural workers in Essex. Although I thought the motion I was moving was an extremely moderate one, nearly all the farmers fell off their chairs when they heard the figure. But it was a long way below the figure which in these days it is thought fit and proper to pay to agricultural workers. We found it rather difficult to get the farmers to agree to a discussion of our troubles, let alone any agreement, but eventually we did get it.
Today the situation is quite different. Employers and workers are prepared to sit down and talk and try to reach an agreement. They do not go into a conference—at least I have never done so—feeling that they must give up their cherished beliefs. They go into the conference with the desire to get out of that conference the best possible conditions for their people. I believe that the wage councils have done as much as any other piece of legislative machinery to encourage the development of that kind of co-operation throughout industry.
Therefore, because this Bill will tidy up an industry which badly needs tidying up and will lead to a speedier consideration of the claims of the parties concerned, while at the same time removing some of the criticisms which have always been made of the old form of machinery in this industry, I am going to support it, and I know that I am also speaking on behalf of the union of which I have the honour to be a member.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Scollan: There is only one point in the Bill in which I am particularly interested. With all the other points I am in agreement. Before I come to that point, I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). He tried to take a good deal of credit for his party because of the work that was done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in introducing the Trade Boards Act. It was obvious from the remarks made by the hon. Member that he is not aware of the circumstances in which that Measure was introduced. Further, he is totally ignorant of the conditions prevailing in the industry which brought about that Act. At that particular time the indignation of all right-thinking people in the country was directed towards the most damnable conditions under which many of the workers in the various industries had to work. It brought about "The Song of the Shirt." I suppose the hon. Member never heard of that poem, but it described how shirts were made by a consumptive widow in a hovel and how she got a price which just kept body and soul together. That was what brought about the Trade Boards Act.
The right hon. Member for Woodford was the very honoured person who had the privilege of bringing in a Bill for which the whole country was crying out. It was a very small, meagre Measure. It laid down certain conditions and such were those conditions that, today, the people who laid them down ought to hide their heads in shame. I recommend the hon. Member for Torquay to read about the actual conditions under which the first rules were laid down. If he does so, never again will he open his mouth to claim credit for the Tory Party for that Measure. There have been members of the Tory Party and of the British aristocracy who were friends of the workers.


Lord Shaftesbury was responsible for many of the reforms before there were any friends of the working classes in this House.

Mr. C. Williams: Will the hon. Member——

Mr. Scollan: No, I will not. Sit down and try to learn something. I want to deal with one particular matter, which is whether the Act is to be amended to the point of allowing wages councils to fix wages under a sliding scale for particular industries. For nearly 10 years I was secretary of one of the largest industrial councils in the country, relating to the sugar, confectionery and food preserving industries, including all kinds of food preserving. During that time my council never once made a decision which did not create great interest in the whole industry. What impressed me was the lack of knowledge among the workers about the machinery by which their wages and conditions were controlled. They had no knowledge, but an idea in the back of their minds that the Government did it in some mysterious way.
I watched with very great interest during the war, and since, the operation of wage-fixing machinery. It was only remotely connected with the average worker, and was largely responsible for delay in dealing with complaints and grievances. This fact resulted in all kinds of strikes, unofficial and otherwise, for which somebody was blamed, perhaps because of his political colour. As a matter of fact, workers do not go on strike because somebody tells them a fairy tale but because they have a grievance and there is nobody to remedy it. There is no other reason for strikes. I wish I could impress that fact upon people who talk poppycock about agitators.
I remember after the war of 1914–18 that many trade unions undertook agreements containing a sliding scale. Nothing created more difficulty than those sliding scales, when they began to operate in bringing down wages. There were strikes galore. Everybody said that the workers' leaders had accepted a fodder basis for the workers and that it did not matter how much wealth the worker produced for the country, his standard of life was now fixed for all time.
I warn the Minister of Labour that if he is thinking of fixing sliding scales for the industries of the country, he is cooking trouble for himself. The more we produce in this country and the more our industries recover, the more valuable the paper money of the country will become. A sliding scale is bound to bring down the money wages of the workers. Suppose the cost of living is going down. The worker with £5 or £7 per week may appear to be twice as well off as, according to the sliding scale, he ought to he. Sliding scales decided in 1948 will be fixed at the highest point, and as prices come down and the real value of wages goes up, the workers' money wages will come down under the operation of the sliding scale. I therefore ask the Minister to reconsider this matter.
Every time there is a change either in the domestic cost of living or in overseas markets let the workers' representatives discuss the matter with the workers before beginning negotiation. The workers will have their eyes fixed on the negotiations so that whatever the final outcome may be, the workers will be behind their representatives, unless they have a very strong reason for thinking otherwise. They will have followed the whole course of the negotiation. That is much better than an automatic sliding scale by which wages come down by 5s. this week and again in a fortnight's time, without the workers really knowing why, or who cuts their wages down. They only know that wages are coming down, as they must, under the operation of a sliding scale. This country is making progress and will continue to do so. We shall produce more, and consequently the worker will work more. This is not the time to introduce sliding scales, which have created much trouble in the past.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I am glad of the opportunity of following a fellow Scot, although I rather regretted his attempt to introduce acerbity into the earlier part of his speech. I thought he went out of his way to pour scorn on what was said by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams).

Mr. Scollan: Did the hon. Member hear what his hon. Friend said?

Mr. McKie: It was in reference to the legislation introduced by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in 1909. I venture to remind the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) that the Tory Party were not responsible for any legislation, good or bad, which was introduced in 1909, and that all that legislation was sponsored by the then Liberal Government of Mr. Asquith. The hon. Member for West Renfrew should therefore reserve his stinging remarks for the spiritual heirs—I am sorry they are not here at the moment—of the once great Liberal Party of that day. If the hon. Member says that that legislation was trumpery, he must fix the responsibility and direct his scorn upon the Liberal Party of that day.
The hon. Member tried to make out that the hon. Member for Torquay knew little or nothing about that legislation. Perhaps I might tell the hon. Member for West Renfrew, because he may not know it, that the hon. Member for Torquay contested both the January and the December Elections in 1910 and no doubt heard quite a lot about that legislation at that time. I do not know quite from what angle the hon. Member for Torquay approached that legislation at the hustings. I have not had an opportunity of discussing it with him.

Mr. Gallacher: He approached it as a Tory.

Mr. C. Williams: I have not, previous to this Debate, looked up my election addresses for that time, but I can certainly say that I wanted to see the very best conditions for all the workers in this country and that I certainly approved of all social legislation at that time, as indeed did leaders of the Tory Party such as Mr. Balfour and Mr. Joseph Chamberlain.

Mr. McKie: I am glad to have had that very full explanation from the hon. Member for Torquay. I hope that the hon. Member for West Renfrew will be completely convinced, if he is not willing to accept what I have to say, by the absolutely convincing statement of the hon. Member for Torquay.

Mr. Gallacher: Mr. Gallacherrose——

Mr. McKie: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will no doubt

have an opportunity later on of expressing his point of view, if he so desires, upon this matter, which is important to his constituents as well as to those of all of us. While I accuse the hon. Member for West Renfrew of endeavouring to introduce acerbity into the earlier part of his speech, I nevertheless wish to be fair. I only wish that the hon. Member were as fair as I wish to be. He said—and I thank him for it—that there has been a good deal of social legislation promoted by the Tory Party over the last 120 years since the first Reform Bill of 1832. Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Gentleman was making a wide sweep. After all, he must remember that the wages councils envisaged under this quite small Bill are limited to the people employed in road haulage.

Mr. Scollan: If the hon. Member reads the Bill he will find that it is not confined to road haulage. There are also amendments of other Acts. Might I suggest that the hon. Member reads the Bill before talking about it?

Mr. McKie: I always listen to any admonitions, but let me assure the hon. Member that I do not depart from my original statement, that the Bill is designed, first of all, to set up wages councils for people engaged in the road haulage industry. I was much struck with the stern admonitions which the hon. Member addressed, as he so often does, to his Front Bench. There is no Member on the Benches behind the Government of the present day who is more persistent in embarrassing the Government he was elected to support than the hon. Member for West Renfrew, and he showed no signs of departing from his accustomed practice.
I rejoice that there is one hon. Member on that side of the House who realises the serious inflationary position in which this country now finds itself, a state of affairs which has been fostered sedulously by the Government which the hon. Gentleman, although he criticises it verbally, always slavishly supports in the Division Lobby. I am thankful that he pointed this out, and I hope the Government will take warning from his words and realise the serious position we are in. However, the hon. Gentleman must not accuse me, or any of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, of not


wanting to see a state of affairs where things are regulated on the best possible lines for all workers. I hope that the hon. Member for West Fife, who represents the Communist Party and who gazes at me so fixedly on this occasion, will think on reflection that there are some good intentions in the Tory Party with regard to that matter.
With those few remarks, like my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay, on general principles, we on this side will all wish to give support to this Bill——

Mr. Gallacher: May I say that I always realise there is something in what the hon. Member says, but I have never been able to discover what it is.

Mr. McKie: I am glad to have that interruption from such a well-known interrupter and persistent heckler as the hon. Member for West Fife, but I am not sure he is always so ready to give way as the hon. Member for West Renfrew. However, I am afraid that the hon. Member does not always listen as carefully as he might to what speakers on this side of the House have to say. If he listened more attentively and allowed his mind to be more open, he would be able to follow much more carefully the arguments which from time to time I endeavour to bring forward.
I was about to conclude by saying that, on general principles, I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay said. We on this side do not desire to oppose this Bill. We go further and say that in the main it is on sound lines—almost on the lines which we as a political party, if in power, would have been responsible for drafting; and while we shall reserve the right to put forward Amendments on the Committee stage, I join with all my hon. Friends in giving the Bill an unopposed Second Reading and wish it well in its passage to the Statute Book.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Skinnard: As one who is not a trade unionist I do not normally intervene in industrial matters when they come before this House, but I am not at all diffident in intervening today since I am able to bring the House back to a consideration of the Bill after

what I can only stigmatise as a completely irrelevant speech. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) perhaps was principally to blame in leading the House from the Bill in the first place. To him I would only say that the best answer to his attempted defence of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) lies in the definition of goodness and badness by the celebrated American philosopher Professor Dewey. He defined a bad man as one who, however good he had been in the past, had begun to deteriorate, and that I fear is the condition of the right hon. Member for Woodford, whose excellent early contributions to social progress in the country have been acknowledged by none more than my hon. Friends and myself.
I intended to rise on the Second Reading of this Bill because, before the Bill was published, I discovered that there was considerable anxiety in the country on the part of both employers and employees as to what it would contain. It is a measure of that mounting agreement to which the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) so rightly alluded in his able contribution to this Debate, that there is, through the gradual growth of this machinery of negotiation in its various forms, a different atmosphere in industry, so that a private Member of the House could be approached by two delegations consisting of employers and employees to find out what was to be in the Bill and to make constructive suggestions.
There was expressed to me some anxiety lest this Bill should be too narrow; that, for instance, it should confine itself entirely to the changes taking place whereby the provisions of the Road Haulage Central Wages Board would become a wages council, because they felt that was not sufficient. What they wanted was a series of amendments to make the present working of wage negotiations easier and quicker, and one which could be better understood by both sides.
Now, this Bill, small as it is, seems to have covered every point which was raised to me before its provisions were known. If there is one thing productive of distrust in industry at the moment—and it is brought home particularly to Members like myself who are open to


attack because we are presumed to be ignorant, and therefore more easily persuaded of the points of view of the people who approach us—it is that where there are what the workers regard as justified wages claims, there is an undue delay in the settlement of those claims through the present negotiating machinery.
The Minister has clearly pointed out the value of the wages board machinery when it was first established. Examples have been given of its usefulness over the course of the years, by other hon. Members on this side who have spoken, but the Minister has shown us most clearly how more effective is the wages council method. I am one who believes that the greater the variety of our approach to the problem, the more nearly shall we find the best solution. The hon. Member for Upton (Mr. A. Lewis) put in a stirring defence of the joint industrial council method. To me, the value of this Bill is that, for the first time, we do not lay down a hard-and-fast permanent form of negotiation. First, we have in Clause 3 (3) what I consider to be a most valuable innovation:
Where a commission of inquiry embodies two or more wages council recommendations in the same report, it may include in that report a recommendation for the establishment of a central co-ordinating committee in relation to all or any of the councils to which those recommendations relate …
Let me here hark back to something which was said by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby. He pointed out that all the recommendations of wages boards or councils must have some relation to the interests of the nation as a whole. The greater the area where an agreed opinion can be obtained, with the help of those independent members to whom the Minister paid such just tribute, the nearer will these particular industries approach the interests of the nation.
In my constituency I have come up against this rather forcibly, perhaps, because I have the great privileges and also the unfortunate disabilities which follow upon residence right in the middle of one's constituency. In such circumstances one is always on duty, particularly in the spare time of other people, and I have had representations on this point from no fewer than three new industries of very great potential importance in our export trade. What is happening as the

result of scientific and electronic research, and so on, is that we are getting new patterns of industry and, indeed, completely new industries. A Bill of this kind, therefore, must be elastic if it is to be useful. One of its provisions which I welcome especially is that set out in Clause 4 whereby representations may be made by a joint industrial council, a conciliation board or other similar body for the abolition of wages councils for their own particular industry. In the elasticity of its provisions I see the possibility of that advance which was asked for by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby.
I am very glad there is general agreement on all sides of the House that this Measure is not only necessary but well drawn up. Unlike most Bills which are small and generally agreed to, the proceedings in Committee are likely to be the most important stage of this Measure, for it may be possible then to amend and extend it to serve an even more valuable purpose than it does as it stands at present, over a greater variety of industries.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Awbery: The House is debating one of the most important industries in the country, one which is the lifeblood of the nation. The movement of goods throughout the country can be likened, in fact, to the flow of blood through the body and I am glad that the House is taking some time to discuss such an important industry. Until this industry became organised, it suffered absolute chaos. There was no machinery to negotiate wages or hours, and until after the last war, chaos existed in the whole of our transport industry. It will be within the memory of hon. Members that immediately after the 1914–18 war the Government disposed of all the lorries which they had used during the war, with the result that road haulage contractors sprang up like mushrooms and the multiplicity of contractors made the position of the industry chaotic.
I well remember negotiating wages in the industry in a town in South Wales. The amount laid down by the trade union as a day's wage for a man driving a horse was 10s. 6d. The local authority advertised for contractors to work for them and the contractors offered their services—of man, horse, and cart—for 14s. a day, although the trade union rate for the man


alone was 10s. 6d. Men employed in the industry, however, could not complain that they were not getting the trade union rate; because they were afraid of being sacked. Only after a man had left his employer were complaints received by the trade union that he had not been paid the trade union rate under the fair wage clause.
As a trade union secretary at that time, my business was to complain to the local authority that their contractors were not complying with the fair wage clause of their contracts. I was called upon to prove my allegations and an inquiry was held. The committee which dealt with the contracts was called together, the men gave evidence, and it was demonstrated beyond doubt that the road haulage contractors were not carrying out the fair wage clause of their contracts. As a result all the contracts were cancelled and new ones were sought. The chaotic state of the industry in that particular town was to be found also in other parts of the country.
I agree that there have been developments in the wages structure of the industry. Many of them were brought about by the Opposition when they were on this side of the House. But they helped to improve the structure only because of the force of the organised men in the industry. The joint industrial councils, for instance, were first set up, I believe, under a Coalition Government in 1917. Not only did the organised workers press for such action, but the circumstances of the war necessitated the appointment of some kind of committees which would prevent industrial troubles and strikes at that period. In consequence, there has been a gradual development and improvement in the wages structure of this important industry.
If at the present time, with the development of industry which is taking place, we had no trade unions and no wages structure in industry, the Government would be compelled to set up such a structure and to establish trade unions, because we could not carry on the complex system of industry which exists today without a trade union movement. The better the organisation amongst the men in a particular industry, whether road transport or any other, the more perfect will become its wages structure

and the smoother will it work, with the result that there will be fewer strikes. It is essential, therefore, to encourage the better organisation of every industry.
We are by this Bill modernising the wage structure of this industry and bringing it up to date, but I wish to remind the House that this Bill is not the final stage in that process. No structure we devise today will be the final structure for all time. What we are laying down today may, 10 years hence, have become obsolete and unusable, and we shall have to adopt a new system. Five years ago, we were discussing the Road Haulage Wages Act and the system laid down then was appropriate to that time, but now things have developed differently and a new structure has to be devised. The time may come when we shall have to revise what we are doing today.
A fact which will be of importance to the industry and the Government was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard). He was dealing with the speed at which differences which arise in industry are dealt with by the wages structure. We continually hear how strikes are caused by the slow working of the wages machine. Negotiating committees are not called together, but are put off from time to time and often the resulting delay causes more trouble in industry than the claim submitted by the men. I claim that the structure laid down in this short Bill will speed up the settlement of grievances and the settlement of wages claims and will, therefore, help industry to move along smoother lines. As one who has had long experience in the trade union movement, organising in this industry on behalf of my union, I welcome this Bill. I feel it will help the men in a vital and important industry and will prevent a number of difficulties and strikes in the future.

5.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I am sure the way in which my right hon. Friend outlined the purposes of this Bill and its meaning was welcomed on all sides of the House. We are all grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who led for the Opposition, for the way in which he reacted to the


manner of the speech of my right hon. Friend. This is a remarkable Bill in so far as it has received the approbation of every hon. Member who has spoken in the Debate. There has been complete agreement on the purposes of the Bill. It is quite natural that we should have some recollection of past battles and struggles when discussing that part of the Bill which deals with road haulage wages procedure.
The right hon. and learned Member made an important point in connection with the non-parochial consideration of matters referred to these wages councils. He stressed that they should take into account not only the circumstances of the particular industry, but the relation of that industry to the rest of our economy. He will be aware that since the publication of the White Paper on prices, profits and wages each of these wages councils has given an undertaking that it would consider that statement in conjunction with the consideration of any claim before it. That, in itself, has been helpful. It has helped to give a rather wider horizon and made it possible to consider not only a narrow sector of facts, but the effect of decisions on the rest of our economy. In that way it has helped to play a great part in steadying the whole position in regard to the rather inflationary pressure that was threatening to come into operation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned that during the Committee stage there might be points on which there would be differences of opinion and that the Opposition would pay attention to those points. We shall welcome any assistance we have from all sides of the House in making this Bill better. Undoubtedly, in some respects we are groping in a new field and on the edge of new experience. The pattern of industry is changing and it may well be that we shall need new methods to deal with it.
All hon. Members who have spoken on either side of the House have given a general welcome to the Bill, and I propose only to deal with points of detail which have been specifically raised for reply. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who has had a very distinguished experience in this special field of our economy, asked if when joint councils applied for the abolition of their existence as wages

councils, becoming joint voluntary bodies, they would have the right subsequently to ask for the restoration of the wages councils. That right will continue to be theirs at any time. Once a wages council goes out of existence, and it is found by the experience of employers, or workers, that voluntary agreements are not being honoured on one side or the other, they will be entitled to ask for the restoration of the wages council structure for that industry.
My hon. Friend also asked whether there was anything in the Bill which took ultimate power from Parliament. On studying the Bill, he will find that Parliament's position in relation to these amendments is exactly the same as it was under the original Act and that there is no attempt to take from Parliament ultimate sanction in reference to what is done in connection with these wages councils.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upton (Mr. A. Lewis) raised a number of points and dealt with a great deal of matter outside the terms of the Bill. He referred to wages boards under the Catering Wages Act. That is not dealt with under this Bill. I suppose the time has not arrived when we should bring catering wages machinery into conformity with the general wages council machinery. He stated a new philosophy. He hoped these wages councils were not the final form of our industrial relations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson) took a rather contrary view. He said he hoped no one would ask for the abolition of the machinery of wages councils. I can understand the reasons for both points of view, but the wages council machinery came into existence for the purpose of helping to get order in industries which were not adequately organised. When they become adequately organised on both sides; when employers are able to enforce decisions on their members and trade unions are able to discipline their members, the existence of the wages council machinery seems unnecessary. As we have a very substantial section of industries not covered by wages councils, but by joint industrial councils, it may be that the argument will tend to go along the lines put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Upton.
Amidst a lot of moaning and rejoicing, we had a contribution from the hon.


Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). He wanted to know a number of things that have nothing at all to do with the Bill. He wanted to know whether, under the Bill, we could do something about time tables and schedules. They do not arise under the Bill and are not matters to be decided by wages councils. He also suggested that the question of the speed at which the men were compelled to work by these new timetables should be considered by the wages councils.

Mr. C. Williams: I said that one of the reasons why the public welcome these bodies and why we think that they can be of adavntage is because we believe that one of the things that a council will do, when inquiring into wage conditions, will be to look into the conditions under which the men work. Obviously anything to do with a timetable must have some bearing on the conditions of work. I did not expect that timetables could be included in the Bill. I merely said that it was one of the reasons why we welcomed the Bill. I was really stating the hon. Gentleman's case.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not resenting the hon. Member's attempt to help us. I am saying that the considerations which he put forward do not fall within the scope of this Bill, and that the question of scheduling is not a matter for a central wages council. The hon. Member asked how many reports we could expect each year from these wages councils. I find that five reports have been issued since 1945, so that he will not be burdened too much with a lot of reading matter in consequence of the alteration of these wages councils.
A number of other points were raised. The most outstanding was that made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), who, I think, took an unusual attitude. He rather requested the Government to lay down that cost-of-living sliding scales should not be introduced by these wages councils in their agreements. I should deeply regret to see the day when this Government or any other Government told a body consisting of representatives of both sides of industry what form its wages agreements were to take. It must be a matter for the representatives of the trade unions and the employers on these wages

councils to decide what is in their best interests.

Mr. Scollan: Is it not within my hon. Friend's recollection that the Prime Minister issued a White Paper on personal incomes, and that the Chancellor issued advice the obvious intention of which was that the trade union movement and the wage negotiating machinery should observe certain things in the interest of the country. Is it not in the interest of the country to avoid the type of thing to which I referred, which is likely to lead to industrial disputes?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I take the view that trade union representatives who are handling these wages negotiations and such matters day by day are far more competent than I am to advise their members as to what is in their best interests. I know of nothing which the Government have done to advise any body of trade unionists or any trade union organisation to adopt this or any other method. I sincerely hope that the workmen of this country will be convinced that this Government do not intend to influence or control the activities of wages councils or any joint industrial council. Once the Government begin to act in that way other Governments can do the same, and Governments may misunderstand what are the interests which are represented in the joint industrial council or wages council.

Mr. Scollan: If that is the case, as I am inclined to agree—indeed I have advocated it in the past—why did my right hon. Friend, in his opening speech, introduce the question that these councils would have the power to fix sliding scale agreements? Is not that a hint to them to do so?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The councils can do that now, but they are not obliged to publish information about it. What my right hon. Friend referred to was the right to publish. All that is provided in the Clause to which my hon. Friend refers is that the wages council shall publish information about this matter when it has arrived at a decision. The provision means that and nothing more. In those circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel satisfied that there is no great danger of this Government losing the virtue which he thinks they possess.
I have covered most of the points which have been raised in this Debate. Those to which I have not referred can be dealt with on the Committee stage. I echo again what my right hon. Friend has said, that we hope we shall have ample time on the Committee stage to give the closest possible attention to some of the details, because some of them are really tricky and will require close examination. We shall hope to be as reasonable as we have always been in dealing with Bills promoted by the Ministry of Labour.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — RECALL OF ARMY AND AIR FORCE PENSIONERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill was foreshadowed in the new pension and pay code for members of the Forces below commissioned rank, which was issued in December, 1945, as Cmd. 6715. I would direct the attention of the House to paragraph 40 of that White Paper, which reads:
There is a difference between the Services at present in regard to the liability of Service pensioners to be recalled for service at time of emergency. It is proposed that as part of the new scheme a liability to recall for service in emergency should apply to pensioners of all three Services.
It will be clear from that paragraph that our object is to align the Army and R.A.F. with the Navy in regard to the liability of their pensioners to recall in time of emergency. It will further be clear from the paragraph I have quoted that the purpose and intention is to link this liability to recall with the new rates of pension which were authorised on 19th December, 1945. That purpose is achieved in Clause 1 of the Bill, which defines the groups of pensioners who are liable to recall.
The House will notice in the first place that persons whose Service pensions were originally granted before the beginning of the war, that is before 3rd September, 1939, are excluded from the scope of the Bill and from any liability to recall in time of emergency. We have then to consider pensioners who have been dis-

charged on pension since that date, that is either during or since the war. Those pensioners at present can choose, as between the old and the new rates of pension code, the more favourable of the two awards. But they have been told that legislation is being sought to place upon them this liability to recall. They will be asked finally to make a choice between having their pensions assessed under the old code and the old rates without any liability to recall or of having them assessed on the new rates, with liability to recall. It is desirable that they should make that choice by the end of this financial year.
It is for that reason that this Bill is being introduced early in the Session, and we hope that Parliament will be agreeable to passing it into law by the end of this calendar year at the latest, so that these classes of pensioner can exercise that choice which will be open to them.
We have then to consider a third group of persons, those who have entered into pensionable engagements before 19th December, 1945. They, when they come to be discharged to pension, will make a similar choice between the old rates of pension with no liability or the new rates with liability to recall. With regard to those soldiers and airmen who entered into pensionable engagements after 19th December, 1945, it will be clear that their pensions would be on the new rates, and they would be subject to liability to recall. So throughout, if we consider those groups of persons, we get the position that the liability to recall described in this Bill is linked all the way with having one's pension assessed as I have described at the new rates, that is to say those authorised on 19th December, 1945.
I ought perhaps to refer to the actual wording of Clause 1 on this point. I have spoken throughout of the new rates, meaning those authorised on 19th December, 1945. Those new rates will be embodied in a Royal Warrant, or in the case of the Royal Air Force, an order, which will be issued shortly after this Bill becomes law. That is why what I have described simply as the "new rates" are more legally and precisely described in the Bill as pensions assessed or reassessed in accordance with the provisions of a Royal Warrant or order made after the passing of this Act.
There are, of course, certain obvious and natural exemptions from liability to recall. For example, it is not proposed to recall persons who have reached the age of 60, even though under any provisions of the Act they would be liable. Further, there are the obvious exemptions defined in the Schedule to the Bill, and I ought at this point to give an explanation of the position of disabled pensioners. The House will realise that the terms "pension" and "pensioner" in this Bill do not refer to disability pensions but to Service pensions. There is the case of men who are in receipt both of the Service and the disability pension. Since they are in receipt of a Service pension they would be liable to recall but, of course, we should not recall anyone whose disability was of such a character as to make it unreasonable to do so. There may be some cases of men with minor disabilities who are also in receipt of Service pensions and would be recalled under the Bill. But in every case, where a pensioner is recalled he will be medically examined, and naturally we should not proceed with the recall if it were clear that he was not fit to perform the duties which we have in mind for these men.
Having described the classes of persons who are, or are not, liable to recall under the Bill, I might mention the numbers who may possibly be affected. We estimate that for the Army there is something in the nature of 14,400 persons who will be able to exercise the choice which I have described and may, therefore, become liable to recall. The figure for the Royal Air Force is in the neighbourhood of 2,000. Hon. Members will realise that we cannot say in advance how these men will exercise their option. The numbers, therefore, who do ultimately become liable to recall by exercising the option for a pension in the new rates may be substantially less than the figures I have quoted. On that point, it would be impossible at this stage to prophesy, but those are the approximate numbers of persons who have the option which I have described.
At some future date there will be women who are Service pensioners in the Army and the Royal Air Force. When that situation arises they also would be liable to recall. It is not yet quite clear whether further legislation would be

necessary in order to bring that about. It depends upon the comparative dates at which the Order in Council relating to the Women's Services comes into force and the date on which this Bill becomes law. In any case, it is not a matter that arises in anything like the near future. I merely wish to make it clear that that is the intention, and what legal proceedings may be necessary has yet to be seen. But it is the intention, when there are women Service pensioners of the Army and the Royal Air Force, that they should likewise be subject to this liability to recall.
I have spoken about the question of who is liable to recall, and I now wish to say something as to what is the nature of the liability. That can be found in Clause 2 of the Bill. It may be briefly and simply summarised by saying that, with regard to recall they will be in the same position as Reservists of the Army and the Royal Air Force. At the moment that means, with regard to an Army Reservist, that he may be called out.when there is a Proclamation in time of grave emergency. As hon. Members will be aware, such a Proclamation is at the moment in existence. In the case of the Royal Air Force, Reservists may not only be called out by means of such a Proclamation, but called out to defend the United Kingdom in case of actual or apprehended attack. It is possible that future legislation may alter the nature of the liability of Reservists, and if so the liability attaching to pensioners under this Bill would be similarly altered. But, in general, the nature of their liability is the liability that attaches to a Reservist of the Army or the Royal Air Force.
There is one exception. They would not be liable to be called out in order to assist the civil power, because when Reservists are so called out they are not deemed to be on permanent service. The House will notice from the text of the Bill that pensioners are to be in the same position as Reservists deemed to be called out for permanent service under the Reserve Forces Act.

Colonel Dower: Could the right hon. Gentleman define that a little more clearly? It is very uncertain when they are assisting the civil power and when they are acting as Army, Navy or Air Force personnel.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that in practice such a difficulty arises, because if Reservists are called out to assist the civil power it will be made clear at the time whether they were deemed legally to be called out for permanent service or not. That legal distinction, which would have to be made at the time, would determine whether or not the liability attached to pensioners. The hon. and gallant Member will agree that in any case we are discussing a slightly academic point rather aside from the main purposes and nature of the Bill. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 makes the necessary provision that pensioners recalled under this Bill will become persons subject to military law.
I have spoken as to who are to be made liable and what they are to be made liable for. Clause 3 deals with the question of how the liability is to be enforced, what is the machinery for recall. Touching on that matter, I should say at once that we all realise that the persons with whom we are here dealing are men who have been, and would still wish to be, willing soldiers and airmen. They are men with long records of service and, therefore, the process, the legal provision, requiring them to comply with the Act, can be regarded as no more than an inevitable formality. Also, the call-up procedure is made simple in their case by the fact that, since they are pensioners, the two Service Departments concerned are in regular and periodic contact with them, so that administrative difficulties about their recall would be reduced to a minimum.
It is, of course, a fact that the Service Departments are not required by this Bill to call up everybody who becomes liable. This is what we propose to do. The arms and branches concerned would first of all make a list of vacancies suitable to be filled in time of emergency by these pensioners. Record offices dealing with these lists would then compile lists of individual persons suitable to fill the vacancies so that we should have, should the emergency arise, a clear picture of who was to be recalled out of those made liable and what they were to be required to do.
I think that hon. Members would wish to hear something about the conditions under which these men will serve. Reference is made to that in Clause 4, where it is made

clear that they would receive both pay and pension during their period of service after recall. The Bill lays down that they must receive their pay without any deduction, and the Royal Warrant or order will lay down that they must receive their pension in such circumstances without deduction, so that they will be receiving both pay and pension. Of course, in view of their experience they would not be required to undertake any training. The question of the rank they would hold is a matter upon which there was some comment in this House some time ago when this Bill was first foreshadowed by the introduction of the White Paper.
I have described how we shall consider in advance what are suitable vacancies for these men. We should not normally call up a pensioner unless there was a vacancy for him in the rank which he held immediately prior to discharge—I said normally. There might arise a certain number of cases where we felt we could make good use of a man's services and where there was no vacancy for him in the rank he held immediately prior to discharge——

Mr. Bellenger: Substantive rank?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, but in no case should we recall him and require him to serve in more than one rank lower than the rank he held immediately prior to discharge.

Colonel Dower: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman is considering having the power to recall these men in one rank lower than the rank they held, and that the men are not to be given any option? Do I understand that they are not to be asked whether they wish to be recalled in the lower rank but that they will in fact be demoted for a period?

Mr. Stewart: That could happen, yes. The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that it follows from the very nature of an Act of Parliament that the men cannot very well have an option on the matter. There is a legal liability to recall. We propose so to exercise our power of recall that in the great majority of cases the men would hold the same rank. Only where that was impossible but where it was genuinely useful and desirable to use the man's services, might


we occasionally adopt the expedient of recalling him in a rank one lower than that which he had held immediately prior to discharge.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) asked whether the rank to which they are to revert on recall, will be the substantive rank and not a temporary rank. Will it be the highest substantive rank which a man held?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, it will be the substantive rank. On the question of duties, the House will realise that that follows from a consideration of the type of man with whom we are dealing. We have in mind various types of extra regimental employment, administrative work in the training organisation, and possibly at a later stage work in connection with the organisation of prisoner of war camps. Many examples will immediately spring to the minds of hon. Members familiar with these problems.
I think I may say that the remaining Clauses of the Bill deal only with necessary administrative details. I may sum up by saying that the effect of the Bill is to remove an anomaly between the Navy and the other two Services. I presume that anomaly exists because at a time before warfare was of its present nature it was always assumed in this country that the readiness of the Royal Navy had a peculiar and exceptional importance which did not attach to the readiness of any other arm. But, of course, the nature of modern warfare is such as to make that assumption no longer tenable. Therefore, we are removing an anomaly between the Services. We are completing the purpose which was foreshadowed in the White Paper. We are providing the Army and the Royal Air Force with the services in emergency of a considerable and, as time goes by, an increasing number of experienced and valuable men. For those reasons I commend the Bill to the House.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Under-Secretary has expounded the effect of this Bill very clearly, and it is not necessary for me to say anything which is likely to engender any heat or rouse much controversy. This is a Bill of very limited application. It applies

only to those granted pensions since 3rd September, 1939, and, of that number, only those whose pensions are assessed or reassessed after the passing of this Bill. The hon. Gentleman told us that the total number likely to be affected by this Measure at present is in the region of 16,000. Of course, the time will come when every Regular man in the Army or Air Force will automatically on retirement be affected by this Measure, so that the total number will be likely to increase. Even that number will only be affected by this Measure—and here I quote the words of the Reserve Forces Act of 1882——
in case of imminent national danger or of great emergency.…
I am sure that in future, as I believe it to have been the case in the past, in the event of an imminent national danger or of great emergency, the Service pensioners of the Army and the Air Force without the liability to recall imposed by this Bill, would be among the first to come forward to offer their services to the country. Because I believe that and because I believe they would come forward as readily in the future as they have done in the past of their own desire, I do not regard this Bill, which creates the liability to recall, as an important Measure.
There are a number of points to be raised during the Committee stage, but I should like to touch now on one or two major questions. Perhaps it may not be possible—I hope that it will—to get a reply now. I put them forward for consideration and I hope for a satisfactory answer. The first question arises in this way. Under the Bill the Service pensioner is deemed to be enlisted from the time of recall. If I understand the Bill correctly, that will mean from the time specified in the notice sent to him. The position under Army law will then be that if he fails to comply with the notice, if he fails to report at the time stated in the notice, he will be an absentee without leave, and on his reporting late, he is bound under military law to be placed in arrest and tried as an absentee without leave. That is the effect of saying that he will be deemed to be enlisted from the time of recall.
The hon. Gentleman spoke most clearly about the marrying up of a list of vacancies with the persons who are recalled. What the hon. Gentleman did not


give us any information upon, was the linking up of the machinery of this Bill with any machinery for determining whether the Service pensioner was or was not fulfilling a more useful role, in the national sense, in his civilian capacity. If there is another imminent danger or grave emergency, there are bound to be reserved occupations, but, under this Measure as it now stands, a Service pensioner in a reserved occupation, or any other occupation of great importance in the national interest, will, if the War Office or Air Ministry serves a notice upon him, have to obey that notice, and that, it seems to me, may not be in the national interest.
I think it is desirable that there should be some machinery, not just for compiling in the record offices a list of vacancies and another list of persons to fill them, but for determining, before these notices of recall are sent out, whether or not it is better in the national interest to leave the pensioner where he is. The hon. Gentleman said nothing upon that point. Perhaps it can be dealt with by administrative action. It may be that, to deal with it satisfactorily, having regard to other Acts on the Statute Book, some Amendment to this Bill is required, and no doubt, we shall have an opportunity of considering that at a later stage. Bearing in mind that the recall of men, and perhaps women, affected by this Measure is not to be done by Proclamation but by individual notices, one observes a disparity between the treatment to which these individuals will be subjected and the treatment under the ordinary call-up.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the case of Service pensioners who were also drawing a small disability pension, and I was glad to hear what he said on that issue. There is the further possibility that the Service pensioner, in the passage of years, may become physically unfit, and, although on the Army records he may appear to be a very suitable person to fill a particular vacancy, it may be a pure waste of time, on account of his physical unfitness, to send that individual, whose last known address was, say, in the north of Scotland, a notice recalling him and telling him to report at Penzance. What machinery exists or will exist for ensuring some sort of medical examination before the individual Service pensioner is called upon

to obey one of these notices? There ought to be some sort of machinery to achieve that end.
Then there ought to be some sort of machinery whereby the pensioner can put forward statements, perhaps from his employer, as to the importance, in the national interest, of the position he occupies in his civilian capacity. I hope the hon. Gentleman will deal with that aspect of the matter. I am talking, as he will appreciate, largely upon the machinery, and it does seem to me that, since he did not allay my fears upon this matter in his speech, these two questions ought to be covered.
There is a further question of machinery. I find it difficult to agree with the hon. Gentleman's statement—I am not sure if I heard it correctly—that the precise legal position and legal right to recall these people is a matter of mere formality, because they will be willing men. While I agree that they will be willing men, I could not agree that the legal position is a mere formality, bearing in mind the liability to be treated as an absentee without leave if the pensioner does not report at the due date. Let me examine the case of a Service pensioner who is overseas. Under Clause 3 (4), a notice is deemed to be served on him directly it is posted by the War Office or Air Ministry.
It may well be that the Service pensioner is in Kenya or Canada, or any other part that is left of the British Commonwealth, and does not receive the notice until after the date specified in it for his recall. If he returns by the quickest possible means, he is still under military law, as I understand it, bound to be treated as an absentee without leave. Ought not some provision to be made in this Measure to avoid that unfortunate consequence, which would be automatic in its operation upon a willing ex-Service pensioner who receives his notice of recall after the date specified for recall in that notice? I should like some consideration to be given to that question before we reach the Committee Stage.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about always being in periodic contact with the pensioners. That, of course, is true where the pension is still being drawn. I think I am right in saying that every six months, the pensioner has to notify any


change of address, but what is the position with regard to the man who has commuted his pension? Under Clause 5 (3), provision is made for liability for recall even if the pension has been commuted and even where it is not being paid. The last known address may well be an address at which the man ceased to reside perhaps 10 or 15 years before, but, even then, that individual will be liable to be placed under arrest if he does not comply with a notice which he has never received. I have dealt so far with nothing except machinery, which is important if we are not to have a great deal of time wasted, in the event of a grave emergency or a national danger, in placing under arrest people who come forward to help their country, and in employing others to determine and ascertain their true position.
Of course, we welcome the statement that the pension will not be affected by the receipt of emoluments when recalled. The Bill itself only provides that the emoluments will not be reduced by reason of receipt of Service pension. I understand from what the hon. Gentleman said that a Royal Warrant or order will provide the converse; that is to say, that the pension will not be reduced because of the receipt of emoluments. Royal Warrants are perhaps more easily altered than Acts of Parliament, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether, in view of Clause 4, where it is specifically provided that the emoluments cannot be cut down because of the Service pension, there could not also be inserted a provision that the Service pension cannot be reduced because of the receipt of emoluments.
The hon. Gentleman also said something on the very important question of rank. It will be unfortunate if people are recalled to a substantive rank lower than that which they held before their discharge. I note that the Minister is not committing himself—wisely, perhaps—not to recall them to fill a rank one degree lower, but he has said that it will not normally be done. I wondered, when I heard those statements, whether some further provision, some safeguard in that respect, might not be inserted in this Measure. Therefore, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give consideration to that also.
This Bill is a small contribution to our defence preparations, and is a little scanty in its nature for the reasons I have already indicated. It corrects an anomaly which has been in existence for very nearly 100 years, and, to some degree, it brings into line Service pensioners of the Army and Air Force with those of the Navy. We shall certainly not oppose its passage, but, at the same time, we shall endeavour to improve it in all possible respects, and, in particular, to avoid, if we can, the most unfortunate circumstances which will ensue if a willing Service pensioner is subjected to arrest, when he wants to serve his country, merely because of non-receipt of a notice sent by a Ministry.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: After what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has said, I have only two short points to make. The first is about the effect of this Bill on the ease with which men who leave the Army and Air Force will be able to get employment for the rest of their working days. Even allowing for the long-service man who has had, perhaps, 25 or 30 years in the Army or Air Force—and who may be between 45 and 50, or even 55 years of age—the men covered by this Bill, at the time they first receive a pension, may have 15 or 20 years in which they will need employment. I imagine that the War Office and the Air Ministry have taken into account the fact that potential employers, when considering such men, must pause for a moment when they realise that they are liable to be swept back into the Services which they have just left, not only in a general emergency, in which everybody called up is swept, but in a special emergency, as, for example, that which necessitated the recall, before the war, of part of the Reserve to go out to Palestine.
In thinking about this Bill during the last few days, I wondered whether it would not be fair in such cases to prolong the age recall to 60. I would like the Minister, when he replies, to tell us whether the Service Departments concerned have given full consideration to this point. I suggest that a division in the maximum age for recall might be made between the special emergency, such as that to which I have referred, and


a general emergency which leads, eventually, or is likely to lead, to the general call-up of men not covered by this Bill as well as those who are so covered. I think it will be generally accepted by the Government Departments and by other Members of this House that the fact that men are liable to be swept from civilian employment in a special emergency must, to a certain degree, affect their employability. It may be that this matter has already been fully taken into account, but, if it has not, I suggest that the Government should consider the possibility, at some later stage, of making a division between what I have called the "special" and the "general" emergencies.
The second point I wish to raise is akin to the matter of rank mentioned by the Minister when moving the Second Reading. He referred us to an occasion when, a year and a half ago, I think it was, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) made a sweeping attack upon the then Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Dudley is not in a position to make a sweeping attack on the, present Secretary of State because, if I may say so, whereas before he was the gamekeeper looking after the interests of the men in the Army, he now appears to have turned poacher, at least for the time being, and is not now in the same happy position as he was in then.
In the course of his speech, he asked two questions, and it seems very surprising, having regard to his present position, that neither of those questions was answered by the Minister in his opening speech. He asked those questions, not only in his speech, but in a letter which he wrote, first, to the Royal Hospital, and then to the War Office, after the usual inevitable delay. Having told us that he might well have earned the title of "old soldier," he said that he had written to ask what, if he accepted the option given to him, would be his liability to recall, in what rank, and in what corps.
The Minister dealt with the rank situation, and I support my hon. and learned Friend in his request for a promise as to rank to be included in the Bill, although he made no reference to the question of corps. In the last annual Army Act, there was a Clause, of which not all of us approved, to the effect that those who now enlist in the Army have no option

as to the corps into which they are pushed. But these pensioners when in the Services had the right not to be transferred from one corps to another against their will. I shall be glad if the Minister will say whether they will keep that right if and when they are recalled. I should like an answer to that question because I think it is important. As the hon. Member said, it is a matter which is bound to affect the option still open to 14,000 odd pensioners. I trust that the War Office will be able to answer that point through their Air Ministry mouthpiece.
It is a pity that Ministers who move Bills of this sort should give merely a verbal undertaking as to how they will be operated, when such undertakings might well be put into the Bills themselves. Although the value of an undertaking given by a Minister is, of course, considerable, its value, when incorporated in an Act of Parliament, is much greater. I ask them to consider very carefully the requests made by my hon. and learned Friend and to accede to them by incorporating new Subsections in the Bill during the Committee stage.

6.30 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I should like to ask for a little more information on two points. One is this question of calling out, or not calling out, on behalf of the civil power. At present what I might term the ordinary Reservist is liable to be called out, if his particular category of Reserve is called up, for purposes of aiding the civil power. I understand from what was said by the Under-Secretary of State, who introduced this Bill, that the new type of pensioner will not be liable to be called out. I should like him to reflect a little more on that and to consider whether it is a desirable thing that one class of Army pensioner should be liable to be called out to aid the civil power whereas another class should not. As a general principle it is most undesirable to have two more or less identical classes—at least they think they are identical—in a position where one has to do a dirty job and the other has not to do that job. There is no job a soldier hates more—or an airman, too, I am sure—than that of being called out to aid the civil power. It looks as if a rather unnecessary distinc-


tion is being made between those two classes of pensioner.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) mentioned undertakings given by Ministers. The Under-Secretary gave an undertaking that these men would not be called out and, if that is the case, I think it should be made quite clear in the Bill. It would mean only a small addition, but it would make the position crystal clear, although I think it is an undesirable thing in itself.

Mr. M. Stewart: It is, I think, more than an undertaking. It springs from this. These pensioners are only to be called out when the Reserve is deemed to be called up on permanent service. I am advised that the legal position is that if Reserves are called out to aid the civil power, they are not deemed to be on permanent service, and it is from that that the non-liability of these pensioners would spring.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that a little clearer, but I still think it is an undesirable distinction between two kinds of pensioner.
The second point I wish to raise concerns the forfeited pensions, and arises in Clause 5 (3). I gather from this—I may be wrong, in which case the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will put me right—that a man who has wholly forfeited his pension will not be liable to be called up. He gets away with it for having been a bad boy, whereas the chap who did his job has Reserve liability. It is open to doubt whether that is a desirable thing or not. I can quite understand, of course, that the War Office may not want the gentleman who forfeited his pension, because he probably will not be much use to them if they get him.
Thirdly, I should like to emphasise what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said in this respect: great care should be taken to keep in touch with these Reservists about their physical condition. In 1938, at the War Office, it was my job to set up boards, to select personnel for boards, to vet Territorial and Regular Army Reservists, because, although they got their call-up for various jobs for which some years previously they were thought to be suitable,

when they turned up they were found to be quite unsuitable either through a change of figure or some other disability. A great deal of time was wasted in filling these appointments. I suggest that very careful arrangements should be made to keep in touch with these men to see that they are fit both mentally and physically for any job for which they are required.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Harden: I would ask the Under-Secretary to consider fully the position of the small man who is a pensioner, who builds up his own small business and then receives his recall to the Services under this Bill. He is under military law when he gets that recall and he should, therefore, go at once. I think, however, that he should be given some time in which to hand over his business or make some other arrangement so that it may be continued in his absence—so that he can make some arrangements whereby he has not, in consequence of his recall, to meet financial loss afterwards. Secondly, I would emphasise what has already been said, that if a man is to be recalled, all possible steps should be taken to permit him to come back in a rank not lower than his own substantive rank. Thirdly, I would ask the Under-Secretary whether the figures he gave for those who would be recalled include those pensioners who are at present in Eire.

6.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), in particular, and other hon. Members put a number of points to me, and it is quite clear that they are all trying to help to make this a better Bill. I shall answer some of the points and we will consider between this and the next stage many of the suggestions which have been put to us for improving this Bill.
A very important point made by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry was on the necessity for this Bill. He admitted that it was necessary, and I want to emphasise that fact. Of course, it is true that our pensioners, the pensioners of the Army and of the Royal Air Force, would come back readily and willingly in an emergency, but we must have firm figures with which we can do our ordinary manpower calculations. The Admiralty


for the last hundred years have had this certain information that in the event of an emergency they would have retired senior non-commissioned officers—and they knew exactly the numbers—to train the new men and to man the Fleet.
The hon. and learned Member made several points about the machinery of the Bill. The first was on the expression "deemed to be enlisted" from the time of recall. The hon. and learned Member raised the case of a man who might be in a reserved occupation or other important occupation which was not necessarily reserved. We can cover that and we will, in fact, cover it in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour and National Service who are, of course, very much concerned with this. If these men are in an occupation which is either reserved or which is considered at the time by the Ministry of National Service to be of over-riding importance, they will not be called up.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can we be given some indication of how the machine is going to work, because in this Bill all that happens is that the War Office sends a notice. If there is to be machinery, then it is desirable that we should be given some indication of how it will operate, in the case of the Service pensioner in a reserved occupation or in an occupation which might not be reserved or, as was said by another hon. Member, in a case of a compassionate nature.

Mr. de Freitas: Our lists of pensioners will be lists of individuals, as the hon. and learned Member appreciates, and we shall know the occupation of each one of these pensioners. The Ministry of Labour and National Service will then tell us whether that particular man is of more value in his present job. Each man will be treated on his own merits after considering exactly what he is doing. It follows naturally from the fact that these men are to be treated as individuals and are not going to be called up by a general proclamation.
The question of how unfit a man may be—how he may have deteriorated—although he still has his liability for service is difficult. It is very hard to guard against, but we shall go a long way to cover it by asking the man to notify us of changes in his health. The man him-

self usually knows how he is getting on and we shall do what we can to meet the point by having medical examinations and not leaving it to the ordinary recall medical examination at the centre to which he has to report.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to put a question before he leaves that point, because I think it is important? This sounds rather a loose arrangement. Does it mean that the two Service Ministries are now going into a huddle to work out plans which will be told us at a later stage? I do not think it will be very helpful to wait for a chap to say that his figure has become awkward, or something of that sort—whatever may happen to him. There will be the same difficulty if he changes his job two or three times. It will be difficult.

Mr. de Freitas: If he changes his job a great deal he is probably not of so much value in civil life. However, I do not think that will happen. I think we shall be able to keep a tag on that. I agree that it will be much more difficult on the medical side; but we shall do our best. Now, as to the question of a man's going overseas and receiving his recall too late. This is not a complete answer, but I would point out that he does notify us of his change of address, because of his pension. If a pension is commuted, the recipient cannot commute the whole of it, and there is always something left over. It is extremely likely therefore that we shall be in constant touch with the man in respect of the payment of the balance. I want to emphasise that these men are looked at as individuals, and their records will be as complete as they possibly can be. I think we shall know whether he is overseas or not, unless he has just gone off on a holiday.
A very important point which we shall consider putting into the Bill is the matter of pay and pension. As to the matter of rank, it is not only substantive rank but war substantive rank on which we work. But I think we should recognise that normally when a man is recalled the Service to which he is recalled will be expanding. Therefore, I can only endorse what my hon. Friend said, that it should be only on rare occasions that a man is put in a lower rank. I do not see how I can go further than that. I


ask hon. Gentlemen to bear in mind the fact that the Service would probably be expanding when the man was recalled.
I come to the point made by the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low), who talked about the desirability of dividing "emergency" into "special" and "general." We will look at it. It is of extreme complexity, as he himself appreciated. We did see the effect this Bill would in the long run have on the employment of an ex-Regular. We have a little experience of this in the cases of the ex-Naval pensioners. So really valuable is the ex-Regular of every one of the three Services that employers employ them even though they are aware of the disadvantage of their having to report. A more difficult point is that of a man's being recalled to a particular corps. We could not guarantee that the man would go back into the same corps; but——

Mr. Low: Before the hon. Gentleman proceeds with that "but," I want to ask him whether it is not the law, or the Army convention at the moment, that a man who enlisted at a time before the dates on which the new Clause of the new Army Act came into operation is privileged, in that he cannot be transferred from one corps to another against his will. There is the legal point, which the hon. Gentleman has not answered, and the point of practice, on which he is giving a rather hooded answer.

Mr. de Freitas: I am answering on the position in the future, because the effects of this Measure will be with us for a very long time. I should not like to answer offhand on the position at the present, but I understand that it is satisfactory. For the future, we could not give that undertaking. A change in the structure of the Army may occur—is bound to occur—which will make it impossible to recall a man to the same corps. However, we must remember that these men are being called up because of their specialist knowledge, and that it would be in the interest of the Service itself to make the best use of such men; and that would nearly always mean recalling them to the corps in which they had served before.
Let me now take the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth

(Colonel Gomme-Duncan) on the question of forfeiture. What he said is perfectly true. A man who is a wrongdoer gets away with it. He is really more trouble than he is worth. That is why we have not covered him. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) asked about the man in a small business. Even at present, when a young boy has been called up for National Service there is no difficulty—I have certainly found none—in getting postponement of his call up, if he has immediately got in touch with the authority calling him up. The business affairs of these pensioners would naturally be more complex, and I can see no difficulty in having the same system for them.
I have given several undertakings to look at suggestions which have been made, and my hon. Friend and I will do so. I hope that the House will now give this Bill a Second Reading.

6.48 p.m.

Brigadier Head: It was not my intention to speak, and I shall not detain the House more than a minute. I assured the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, who is concerned with the next Order on the Paper, that I did not intend to speak, and I do not wish to deceive or disappoint her. But arising out-of what the Under-Secretary of State for Air has just said, I should like to put forward the suggestion that he should re-consider very carefully the scheme he outlined whereby these men, if in a reserved occupation, and if required for and liable to call-up under this scheme, will have their cases considered on their separate merits by the Ministry of Labour and by the Service Ministry concerned. It seems to me that if such a scheme is instituted it will result in an immense amount of paper, a great waste of time, and the employment of many clerks and others in those Ministries. Do not let us institute a scheme which will pile up overheads. Let us decide, once for all, that the Services should have the men or the Ministry of Labour, and not have these tribunals that will consider individual cases.

Mr. de Freitas: I really am sorry. I did not mean to give the impression of tribunals and so forth. I do not think that the scheme I mentioned will make it necessary to have a large amount of


paper piled up, as the hon. and gallant Member fears. It would be the ordinary day-to-day dealings of one Department with another. If a man is in agriculture, for instance, we shall know it, and know of his relative value in agriculture or in the Service.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—(Mr. Hannan.)

Orders of the Day — SEED POTATOES (EXPORT CHARGES)

Motion made, and Question proposed
That the Seed Potatoes (Export) (Charges) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 1994), dated 31st August, 1948, a copy of which was delivered to the Votes and Proceedings Office on 31st August, 1948, in a former Session of Parliament, be approved."—[Dr. Summerskill.]

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food has not given us an explanation of the order, and there are one or two points on which I should like to have some information. The acreage payments to farmers for growing potatoes has been the practice now for at least seven or eight years—at any rate, since early in the war—and they have been paid on a higher rate in England and Wales than in Northern Ireland. As I understand the order, it is intended to recover from the overseas buyers of seed potatoes the amount paid out by the Ministry in acreage payments to the farmers. The order is made under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, which was an emergency Measure to continue for the duration of the emergency.
The questions which I wish to put to the hon. Lady are these: First, I assume that potatoes can only be exported under licences made under the principal order of the Board of Trade, and that it is only seed potatoes whose export will receive such licences. Secondly, am I right in saying that this is the first season in which the export of potatoes has been licensed or is intended to be licensed; or is it a fact that the export either of seed potatoes or ware potatoes has taken place in past years without the amount

of the acreage payments having been recovered from the overseas buyers? Thirdly, I should like to know whether the seed potatoes the export of which is contemplated under this order are sold at controlled prices, or whether the overseas buyer is charged whatever he is prepared to pay. I hope that the hon. Lady will give us some information on these points which will satisfy us that this order is a good one.

6.53 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): I did not rise to explain the order because I thought that it was non-controversial. The matter has been discussed with the trade, and the National Farmers' Union agree with the provisions in the order, so I thought that I was not playing any kind of confidence trick by allowing it to pass "on the nod." I can quickly reassure the right hon. Gentleman that this is the first time that this procedure has been adopted, because we have now decided to allow private exporters to resume their pre-war trade. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in thinking that the potatoes will be exported under licence. My Department, the Agricultural Departments and the Board of Trade will agree as to the amount and the varieties to be exported.

Mr. Peake: Only seed potatoes?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes. We shall, of course, in the interests of the trade, get as much as possible from the importers abroad, but the acreage payments will be recovered from the amount which the exporters get.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Lady has mentioned the National Farmers' Union. Does she mean that the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales and of Scotland were consulted on this matter, and did they agree?

Dr. Summerskill: It is usual for both the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and of England and Wales to agree before I am given such an assurance by my Department, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman likes, I will confirm that tomorrow.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC PETITIONS

Select Committee appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as are deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, such Committee to classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and to report the same from time to time to the House; Reports of the Committee to set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, or on the back of such sheets, provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; such Committee to have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:

Mr. Barton, Lieut.-Colonel Boles, Mr. Chater, Mr. Daggar, Mr. Erroll, Mr. Grey, Mr. Grierson, Mr. Guy, Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Lambert, Colonel Lancaster, Mr. McAdam, Colonel Ponsonby. Mr. Raikes and Mr. Viant.

Power to send for persons, papers and records.

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. J. Henderson.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORT

Select Committee appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates and in regard to the form and distribution of the Notice Papers issued in connection with the Business of the House; and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for the House and the public services generally:

Mr. Cluse, Mr. Driberg, Mr. John Foster, Mr. Wilson Harris, Mr. Keeling, Mr. Messer, Mr. Naylor, Mr. Stamford, Dr. Barnett Stross, Mr. Thornton-Kemsley and Mr. Walker.

Power to send for persons, papers and records.

Power to report from time to time.

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. J. Henderson.]

Orders of the Day — FAR EASTERN TRADE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. J. Henderson.]

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Rhodes: In the absence of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling), I wish to raise the question of Far Eastern trade? I had the privilege of being in Japan last October and November with the Parliamentary delegation which was sent out from this House. Since that time, I have taken a great deal of interest in the progress of the economic development of Japan. Some of that development, mainly textiles, concerns constituents of mine who work in cotton mills, the trade which I am engaged in, namely, the woollen trade, and also affects the rayon industry, real silk and the manufacture of it in Macclesfield.
It might be a good thing in developing my point if I were, in some slight measure, to go over the principal operation, the occupation of Japan, and what has happened since. When General MacArthur occupied Japan, after a series of brilliant victories in the Pacific, he had three main tasks: one, the occupation; two, the destruction of the military potential of Japan; and, three, the setting up of a new political entity and the introduction of democratic methods. The first—the occupation—was comparatively easy, because once the naval forces of Japan were destroyed, it was easy to separate the islands' control communications and take possession—so easy was it that when a force of 6,000 American Marines landed in Yokohama Bay there were 1,000,000 men under arms on the plains of Tokyo, and not a single violent incident happened.
The Japanese troops were ordered by the Emperor to lay down their arms and to submit without a struggle. The demilitarisation of Japan was then carried out. In fact, the Japanese outdid the Americans in their enthusiasm to get rid of armaments and military institutions. Immediately, Japan adopted a policy of non-violence on the lines advocated by Mahatma Gandhi in India. Indeed, it is true to say that since the occupation three years ago there have been only six known cases of violence against the American occupation troops. Very


quickly the naval installations at places like Kure were closed down, and soon the Japanese war potential was destroyed.
The third objective, the political objective, was not so easy. General MacArthur knew that it would not be easy; he was under no illusion before he went to Japan about the difficulty of his task, and under the circumstances he has done a really remarkable job in the way he has carried out the occupation. Before he landed General MacArthur was given certain White House directives. One of the first on his list was that trade unions should be established. Again, the Japanese jumped to it to carry out the wishes of the Americans. So much was it the case that within 12 months of General MacArthur's issuing the edict there were 23,370 unions in Japan. A family could be a union on application. There are large unions in Japan such as those of the transport industry, but the majority of the unions are very small.
The Americans were rather handicapped in that they had nobody to explain trade union principles to the Japanese, so General MacArthur sent to America asking for volunteers from the unions in America to come out to Japan and help with trade union education. From that appeal they got one man, a gentleman called James S. Killan. It is rather significant to notice that James S. Killan is no longer there. In each of the three years since the occupation there has been the threat of a general strike in Japan. In each of those three years the strike has been tabooed by General MacArthur.

Mr. M. F. Titterington: Is not my hon. Friend aware that when General MacArthur sought to inculcate Western ideas of trade union, cooperative and general organisation, a gentleman named Mark Star, who was the education officer for the National Organisation of Garment Workers in America, was invited to undertake that work? When I was in Tokyo in 1946, he reassured me that he was undertaking the job in a manner consistent with European standards of trade union, co-operative and general organisation of labour matters.

Mr. Rhodes: I quite agree that when my hon. Friend was in Japan in 1946 Mark Star was there, but when we were

out there he was not there; he had, for some reason or other, gone back to America, and James S. Killan was the only man that General MacArthur could get from unions in America—which, incidentally, was the A.F. of L.—to come to Japan to help to organise the unions there. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) will substantiate that, in the light of an interview we had with General MacArthur before we left.
James S. Killan set up inside the economic and scientific section a small department, which is presided over by General Marquat. When we were there the number of personnel was very small in relation to the size of the job. The trades unions themselves were, in the first instance, set up on A.F. of L. and C.I.O. patterns, as in America. During that time various discussions took place between the Japanese trade unions leaders, the Government and S.C.A.P. regarding labour conditions, wages, the fixing of prices, inflation and so on. But most of the good intentions that so characterised the first two years of the occupation have now been lost sight of, because within the last few months collective bargaining in Japan has been banned. Evidently the reform period is over.
We must take serious note of these things, because it is not a bit of use our going to workers in Lancashire and Yorkshire and inviting them to staff our mills unless at the same time we assume a responsible attitude to what is happening in Japan, and face the likelihood of competition and the difficulty the textile trades will be in when competition really begins. I shall show in a moment how it has begun.
There can be two phases. First, the banning of collective bargaining automatically puts back the power into the hands of the people who had it before—the Zaibatsu. Since the beginning of the occupation they have never been far away. I will give one illustration to show what I mean. During our visit we went to Kyushu in the south, where we visited a coalfield. There were 4,760 workers engaged in that particular colliery. We scrambled over coal and went down shafts for the whole day, and at the end of the day the American officer asked us whether we would like something to eat. He asked us whether we would like to


go to the welfare club connected with the mine. We were happy to accept the offer because we thought that we should meet some of the workers during their off-time.
We went to a lovely house on top of a hill. After we had taken off our shoes, we saw an unusual man on the verandah. He was a very aristocratic-looking person, and someone whispered to us, "That is Baron Mitsui." As I was not keen to shake the hand of anyone connected with the Mitsui clan, I dodged the first introduction. But I noticed that it was not possible to sit down until Baron Mitsui had himself sat down. I was a bit puzzled where he came in. So I tackled a Japanese on my left and asked why Baron Mitsui was there. I was told that he was the head of the whole of the coal and fuel industry of Japan before the war, and that he had been purged. I asked why he was there if he had been purged. "Oh," said the Jap, "he is now the welfare officer." He was living in his own house, and to all intents and purposes was carrying on the supervision of his own business behind the scenes. The Zaibatsu are nearly back where they were.
The position now is that potential competition is worse than before the war. Then the Japanese economy was at least spread over the whole range of manufactured products, whereas today it is confined almost entirely to textiles. The Communists in Japan number approximately 80,000. What can we expect to happen when a trade union movement which started off with so much hope and promise suddenly finds itself cut off by the embargo on collective bargaining?
It means that as soon as the Zaibatsu phase is finished other difficulties appear from the extreme Left. I really do not wish to discuss the political side at all, but the danger to our trade which can arise as a result of the present set-up in Japan. Textiles are the most important exports for Japan, everyone agrees, and we are trying to fall in with 'the American plans as far as possible. We agree that Japan should be able to live, but how on earth we can forge a solid plan for Japan, with her increasing population at the rate of 1,800,000 a year, I really do not know. It takes us all our time to plan for our almost static popu-

lation, let alone devise a plan for a situation of that kind.
The Japanese are a very disciplined race. It may be said that they would still have been a disciplined race if the Emperor had been removed, but I have thought all along that the retention of the Emperor was a very big mistake. I will give one illustration of the terriffic discipline of the Japanese. We went to Osaka to see the cotton and wool mills in that district. We were to go on the midnight train. When we came to the platform on the railway station we were met by the station master, an officious little man with a peaked cap. The train on which we were to proceed was on the right, and just as we arrived at the entrance to the platform a train drew in on the left and at least 1,000 people got out. The little station master, seeing that these people were likely to get in our way, blew his whistle. The incredible thing is that the whole of that crowd stopped dead and turned to see why the whistle had been blown. The station master waved them on one side, and pointing to us said, "Important people." They backed to the stationary train standing behind them, and bowed. Not a single person left that railway station until we had gone past. That shows the extraordinary amount of discipline that can be expected.
The Japanese are a very hard-working people, and they are a virile people. Despite the tremendous increase in population they are not losing their virility. During these last few days I have been given to understand that there is an increase in machinery development in Japan. The machinery potential there for textile machines is immense. There is one firm in Japan whose yearly production is equal to the maximum number of spindles installed by America in their peak year of 1937—namely, 732,000. Can we be told what is happening in this connection?
Last year S.C.A.P. had a plan to set limits to textile production as follows: cotton, four million spindles; woollens, 753 cards. There was also a limit to the tonnage in the staple rayon and continuous filament industry. Since then they have shifted their ground, and I understand that during the past few months a new five-year plan has been


evolved. That plan was announced on 17th May. Some of us wanted to know exactly what it was, and eventually an inquiry went back to General Marquat asking him about the new levels for rayon and cotton exports and woollen goods, which were very high. General Marquat replied that no proposals had been made by the Japanese Government for larger exports of rayon than the S.C.A.P. programme, or their prewar levels. He said that many of the erroneous reports had gained credence through repetition, and were without basis in fact. Our information was based on figures taken from an official hand-out to the Press in Tokyo, on 17th May.
We understand, however, that the statement by General Marquat did not quite square with the facts as the five-year plan is now established. The five-year programme in respect of rayon, cotton and wool is very much in excess of the S.C.A.P. programme for last year. I would like to know whether this five-year programme is authentic or not? What are the export targets for the rayon industry? The published figures are in three groups. It is difficult for anyone to ascertain the export target. I would like to know what are the floor prices of Japanese textiles? So far as I know, they have not been determined. I have a letter here which was addressed by an American gentleman, who is in this country at the moment, to Mr. R. D. Hugentobler, representing the National Wool Textile Export Corporation, in New York. The writer says of floor prices:
It will be the seller's responsibility to see that the price is not below his minimum permitted price.
He says that the new plan implies much more general and less detailed control over Japanese business by the American authorities in Tokyo, and involves a much larger degree of responsibility and discretion for the Japanese firms themselves. I would like to know how these floor prices are agreed. Are they arrived at on New York prices, or on a loose general assumption that the prices are reasonable? Unless we can get some information about the type of competition that we are to expect from Japan, we must be careful not to mislead the people we want back into our own mills. If I am told: "Produce your proof that there is any competition." I

have here a letter from a South African merchant, who says:
The danger is not theoretical; it is both actual and factual, and the root cause of the trouble lies with the American authorities in Japan in permitting such competition. We may say that this competition is directed with equal efficacy to the cotton piece goods and the rayon piece goods trade, and that it will not be long before Yorkshire and Lancashire begin to feel the effects of this competition, because offers from Japan are coming in in most tempting form so that the local buyer is compelled to purchase the stuff if he is going to be at all competitive in this market. The outlook is a most unpleasant one. The Americans have certainly unleashed a Frankenstein monster upon us—the same that made trading conditions in this country a plague before the war.
I have a list of six specifications of Japanese clothes, which are undercutting ours in South Africa. When I was there in March last, I set my face against being influenced by talk that we were being subject to unfair competition. I said, "Produce your samples and evidence; let me see what there is in it. It is no use my going back to Britain and merely saying that there is a lot of competition. Let me have a look at what you have got." I have now six different samples, which can be seen if anyone is interested. The South African merchant I have just mentioned also wrote:
We would heartily encourage these facts being brought to the attention of the British Board of Trade, because it seems to us that short of governmental action vis-à-vis the American occupational authorities in Japan nothing practicable or helpful can be achieved. It is the simplest matter in the world for the British Board of Trade to obtain, through their representatives in Japan, exhaustive details of the woollen production and offerings of Japanese manufacturers.
Before sitting down, I should like to mention one other matter, and that is that some time ago an announcement was made to the trade that the most-favoured-nation treatment was being extended to Italy. That rather shocked a lot of people, particularly the people concerned with the rayon industry. The effects of it have been seen since, not only in South Africa but in New Zealand and in Australia. At this juncture, under no circumstances should the most-favoured-nation treatment be accorded to Japan before the trade and the responsible people have had an opportunity to have a say in the matter and present their case. That is all I wish to say on that subject at the moment.
With regard to the question of possible competition from other countries in the East in textiles, may I mention China. Some time ago we were apt to overlook the productive potential of China. While the new plan in Japan envisages 5.9 million spindles working three shifts, with a production of 170 pounds of cotton yarn per annum per spindle, it is interesting to note that present spindleage in China is in the region of four million. This year they are hoping to increase by a substantial amount exports of cotton goods to the United States, which last year were in the region of 30 million dollars. I would say to those responsible that that particular aspect needs watching as well.
I have nothing more to say on this subject at the moment. I notice that the hon. Member for Brighton, who has his name down for the Adjournment, is now here. I do not know what he is going to say. I had intended to answer him, but unfortunately he could not open the Debate owing to business elsewhere.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling: Mr. Speaker, I should like to apologise to you and to the House for not being here at the moment when the Adjournment was moved. As no doubt many hon. Members will know, at the present moment in this country there is a delegation from the Finnish Parliament, and not unnaturally that delegation wished to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). The only rime that that could take place was at seven o'clock this evening, and as I led the delegation from this Parliament to Helsinki a year and a half ago, I wanted to go with them. However, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) knowing this, was kindly prepared to take my place. He has said many interesting things and gone in great detail into a number of points with which no doubt the Secretary for Overseas Trade will be able to deal.
When I originally put my name down for this Adjournment it was in September during the last Session. Since then much has happened. I put it down for a specific purpose connected with trade in the Far East which I wanted to have brought to light. However, there is now no need for a discussion on that

particular subject, as I gather everything is being gradually eased out and the situation put straight. That in no way made me wish to give up the Adjournment, especially on a night like this when there is so much time to spare. As the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) and others have recently pointed out, the subject of the Far East is one which gets terribly little time in this House—far too little time in comparison with its great importance not only for this country but for the whole Commonwealth.
Since we came back, at least two Members have spoken in the Debate on the Address on the subject of the Far East and I do not think—I certainly have missed it if it has happened—any responsible Minister has answered any of the points that were put by those Members, nor indeed did they ever answer them when I put somewhat similar points in previous Debates in previous Sessions. Why they do not seem willing to answer I do not know. It may be that they feel there are only a few people in the House who are interested, and, therefore, do not bother the House with such technical details when the final summing up takes place in the Debate. On the other hand, it may well be they would rather let sleeping dogs lie, being not at all too happy about the position. It is only on the Adjournment that we can nail the Government down and get an answer even in a short time.
The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) on Friday last took up the question of Japan from a foreign affairs point of view and got a ten minutes' answer from the Under-Secretary of State. To my mind it was not at all a satisfactory answer, but at least it did show that the Foreign Office definitely wanted a peace treaty as soon as possible. By asking the hon. Member for Leek to give them any suggestions as to how to set about getting it, other than the memorandum which was sent to the United States Government as far back as December, the Foreign Office showed that that was the only idea they had as to what they should do. By asking the hon. Member to make some suggestions, the Foreign Office seem to show that they are a little nonplussed as to what to do next about a peace treaty. Now we come to another discussion on the Adjourn-


ment which is more on trade, and we hope to get the Board of Trade to give us an answer from their angle.
I am inclined to think that the most important thing with regard to Foreign Affairs in the East is trade, and, therefore, I am more than glad that we shall have an opportunity of getting a fairly lengthy reply from the Board of Trade, not only on the few questions which I have to put, but as to what is going on out there by way of trade. People in business in the City of London and in the North of England, members of associations of traders connected with the Far East, and bankers concerned have been almost all at a loss to know what is going on, because it is so difficult to get information out of that part of the world. It was so especially with regard to Japan where, at one time, it was almost impossible to wire or communicate with any person without having to go through the S.C.A.P. So, pretty well everything passed through the Board of Trade or the Foreign Office. More than in the case of any European question, we have been in the hands of the Government through shortage of private contacts, and we must ask them for some details as to what is going on.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke in great detail about Japan. In a few minutes I, too, wish to speak on Japan. But there are other aspects of the Far East that have to be looked into and thought about. It is a most vital area for Australia and in many ways for the United States. It is particularly vital to Yorkshire and Lancashire, while people are apt to forget that it is vital also to France. All those countries are interested in what is going on there at the present moment. Can we therefore be told about how far we are in touch with the Governments of those countries in regard to the moves that we make?
One area which is never discussed or talked about is the Philippine Islands, which have a population of more than 13 million. They were under the United States until about 10 years ago. They got their independence more or less on commonwealth lines and today they are completely independent. The United States have, of course, got them inside the dollar area, and trade with them very considerably. The Philippines have

a tremendous possibility. They have gold mines and a number of things vitally necessary for the whole of the world. The United States are not willing to put too much money into them and are not responsible for all that is going on there.
I am not at all happy about what Great Britain is doing. I feel that she is not paying enough attention to those islands and to the possibilities that can be realised there. France is doing far more. Do we realise that the quickest way by far to the Philippine Islands is to go by Air France? Yet to do so, one has to start from England. One can get there in half the time taken by any British line. The French are very proud of this arrangement and are now talking of the possibility of some arrangement being come to with Indo-China whereby they will practically hand over Indo-China to the Indo-Chinese, getting one small town on the coast not very far from Hong Kong. They intend to turn that town into a second Hong Kong, as a second great trading centre. They are hoping to trade with the Philippines from there and with Siam. Are we watching that development to see what is happening?
Perhaps we might be told a little more about the present position in Hong Kong generally, and about its position vis-à-vis China. I remember that in the previous Session an hon. Member who was in China at the time that I was in Japan, made what I considered a rather strong speech on the subject of smuggling from Hong Kong. We ought to be intensely proud of Hong Kong, which has done extremely well since the war and has kept our flag flying in the East. All the talk about smuggling with China is deeply resented out there. We know that there is a black market attempting to evade Chinese customs and regulations—or there is supposed to be—but we should realise also that Hong Kong is doing everything it possibly can to assist the Chinese Government to carry out their own regulations. Hong Kong has introduced controls to regulate the imports of Chinese produce which are passed through Hong Kong. She has stopped the import of Chinese currency and has done other things to support the Chinese authorities. She has agreed to an inspection service operating in Hong Kong territory and territorial waters so as to prevent smuggling.
I believe that I am right in saying that nowhere else in the world can it be shown that the Government of a territory have gone so far to assist the Government of another and neighbouring territory in the enforcement of their own regulations. It is time that we gave a bit of credit for what is being done in that matter instead of making criticisms and suggestions about smuggling and the black market, which show a grave lack of fairness. The economic and political instability in China has undoubtedly diverted to Hong Kong a large number of Chinese, something like one million people. Some part of the entrepôt trade which was formerly carried on in Shanghai has been diverted to Hong Kong. But it is wrong to think that instability in China is in Hong Kong's interest. That is not the case. The long-term prosperity of Hong Kong will always march together with that of China as a whole.
We realise when we are thinking of trade in the Far East that Hong Kong cannot really carry on without China, at least to no very great extent. Equally, China needs Japan. Japanese industries cannot carry on without China. As a market, those two great countries and the small island of Hong Kong should be considered together in any plans and arrangements made by the British Government for trade development out there. In the years to come we can get from the Far East all sorts of things like oils and groundnuts, as we are trying to get from Africa, if only we can get some form of peace in China and for Japan.
Therefore, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to tell us exactly what is happening with regard to our policy, from the point of view both of the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot answer for the Foreign Office as such, but I would like a little assurance that the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade see eye to eye on all these problems. I have my doubts about it because I feel that the Foreign Office look upon the question of a peace treaty with Japan rather on the lines that the healthier and stronger Japan is—I am not talking in the military sense—the better is it likely to be in the long run for the whole Far Eastern position. They are a little apt to be impatient of the feelings of nervous-

ness in Australia and in Lancashire and Yorkshire.
I have met even some English people in Japan and in the Far East who refuse to allow that Lancashire and Yorkshire have a proper case to put. That is a dangerous position from our point of view. It is absolutely vital that we should have a friendly agreement as well as a friendly trade agreement with Japan, but that we should, if possible not give away too much even if we are requested to do so by another great nation. The argument of the United States is that they have been pouring a lot of money into countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Peace treaties have come, and the U.S. have left these countries, where Communism has since developed fast and furious. All their money has, in a sense, gone down the drain. If today they were to walk out of Japan after having poured much money into it, presumably there is a risk that the Communists would take over and that in some way Russia would gain control. That argument is strongly used by a large percentage of people in the United States, and indeed by an element in Japan at the present time.
Another argument which is also used by the United States—this is more by business elements—is that they have poured money in and that until they can get some of that money back they have no intention of getting out. Others say, "We are now pouring in this money and we must go on doing so, but if we do we see no reason why Japan should not have most-favoured-nation treatment in other parts of the world, which we are helping with the Marshall Plan." From the United States point of view that is quite reasonable, but frankly I do not think that it is the idea of either General MacArthur or President Truman, and I am inclined to look hopefully at what has happened in the last few days in the United States from the point of view of the future peace treaty with Japan. I believe that this desire to look at the matter from an entirely financial point of view will possibly diminish, and that we may, in the not far distant future, find the United States more willing to agree with our ideas as regards peace.
Exactly what are our ideas in that respect? Is it to be the Foreign Office idea of giving perhaps a little too much to Japan, or the Board of Trade idea—I


hope it is the Board of Trade idea—of making sure that some agreement is made whereby in some way we in Lancashire and Yorkshire shall be protected as far as possible, or that at any rate something shall be done in the Far East which will help our own trade with Japan. Since 1946, Great Britain's position in Japan has considerably improved. It was pretty bad, in all conscience, in 1946, and was none too good in 1947 when some of this House were there. But it is gradually improving, slowly but surely. Whether the American position is not improving by that much more, so that we still remain relatively as far behind as previously I do not know, and I should like some enlightenment.
We know that there have been trade talks about Japan, and we know that they have reached the stage of a trade agreement, which is to be announced—at some future date. I understood in July that it was almost on the verge of being announced. September came, and I put down another Question to see how things were going. Again I was put off, and the information was that the announcement was to be in the very near future. Rumour now has it that the announcement is to be in the even nearer future; it may be in the active future by now. I should like the Minister to tell us, if he can, whether that is to come about in the near future. If it is, in view of the fact that there is unlikely to be another opportunity such as this for a full discussion of the subject, could he give us just a few points as to what is likely to be in that agreement? How far can he go in telling us how far our traders can be helped; whether it is possible, for example, to have some kind of agreement about the exchange value of the yen, which is vitally important for the traders if we are really to get down to business. We also want to know what type of goods we are to get and, if he can tell us, what will be the position of Japanese goods from the most-favoured-nation aspect which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne raised.
I do not think that total peace is likely in the immediate future, but some kind of token peace could be brought about whereby the Japanese could again carry on, with reparations cleared up, and with definite arrangements made for the future

regarding the repayment over a period of all the debts and loans of the past. I believe that Australia would like that. We might even be able to get China to agree to it, and it is also possible, in the long run, even Russia. All these things are quite possible.
Before closing, I should like to pay my tribute to what I have noted, since I came back from Japan a year ago, of the great success which our Ambassador there, Sir Alvary Gascoigne, has been able to achieve, with the aid of the Board of Trade officials out there, slowly but surely, to improve the position of the British trader in Japan. More than that he cannot be expected to do. The rest must be done in Washington and London. What is undoubtedly outstanding is what he, and also those remaining troops of the British Dominions under General Robertson, have been able to do in their own way to bring about a better understanding and a better position in Japan.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Fairhurst: The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) has addressed himself in a rather sweeping way to the ramifications of foreign trade, and I shall not be able to follow him in detail. He has touched upon so many aspects of foreign trade that I should find it invidious to attempt to select more than one point upon which to touch. That point is the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). Hon. Members know that my hon. Friend is greatly interested in the textile industry of this country, Furthermore, he has sought much information from Japanese sources, and has tried to inform himself about what is taking place in Japan. Consequently, he has been able to give the House much valuable information. I was deeply interested in what he had to say about the possible future development of the Japanese textile industry and its likely repercussions upon our Lancashire textile industry.
Long before the war Lancashire had felt the full blast of the developing and progressing textile industry in Japan. This had affected Lancashire considerably, and I well remember how difficult it was proving in those days to meet Japanese competition. The participation of the Japanese in the last war, and the dropping of the atomic bomb in the closing stages of that war, put a stop


to that state of affairs for a period, but we cannot expect such a situation to continue for any length of time. My hon. Friend also told the House that the Japanese, as a people, are virile, disciplined, ambitious, and a well-ordered race. That is a solid basis for any nation to work upon, and we must not close our eyes to that. In addition to that I would say that they have a textile industry which is as efficiently machined as the Lancashire industry. There, again, is another solid fact which we cannot ignore. How are we to prevent, in a competitive world, Japanese competition from once again matching up to what Lancashire can do in the world market?
My hon. Friend also told us that for a period since 1945 collective bargaining had been allowed in Japan. But after two years it was stopped. He ought to have told us—or asked the question—by whom was it stopped? We must face the fact that it must be in the interests of the United States to develop Japanese textiles because they want to sell their cotton. If we cannot purchase the volume of cotton which they can grow obviously they want to sell somewhere else. Again, there was developing in the Japanese textile industry the tendency for the vertical method of production on a most ambitious scale. The industry was being developed from the bale of cotton to the final product, and much waste was being cut out. In other words, they were making use of modern methods of production, and that is another point we cannot afford to ignore in whatever may happen in the future.
We are told that Japan is developing industrially, and that the population is growing rapidly. Who are we to say that it should not? Are we to ask the Americans to stop them by economic pressure so as to make it impossible for them to feed their people? Of course, we cannot do such a thing. In this world of competition if we are to sell our goods in the international market we must build up a machine to do it efficiently and economically, and meet their competition. That is a very difficult thing to do when one compares the Japanese standards and our own, but it is a thing to which the Government must give serious consideration. Lancashire will have to face it in the not-distant future.
We are indebted to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne for bringing forward this point. I am very interested in the future of the Lancashire cotton industry. I want to see it flourish, and it is obvious to me that if we are to maintain an efficient textile industry in this country we are in duty bound to see that it is developed to the highest point of efficiency, both from the point of view of manpower and of machines. Otherwise—and there is no argument about it—we shall fail in this competitive race. We must realise also that in the future there is a place for the Japanese textile industry and a place for our textile industry. It must be secured by the developing of the social status of peoples throughout the world, especially where they are under-nourished and where standards are low.
I remember being told years ago that if the Indian people had an extra inch in length to their dresses, it would keep the factories going day and night for years to come. But the tendency is to cut some off and not to lengthen—even in spite of the "New Look." The fact remains that in India and in China, and among those peoples whom I might describe as the submerged peoples, where social conditions and standards are very low indeed, the Japanese, American and British textile industries could have a developing and progressive industry by building up the social standards of those peoples. We must see to that. It is a point that ought to be discussed, not only by our Government but by all the Governments interested in building up social standards throughout the world.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Drayson: I listened with great interest to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst). I appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham very much more than that of his colleague. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne likes to try to mesmerise the House with textile technicalities, but I have never heard him get down to the actual problem at issue. I listened very closely to see whether he would put forward any solution to the problem of Japanese and Chinese competition, but I failed utterly to find any constructive suggestion.
On the other hand, the hon. Member for Oldham did ask the question how we were to prevent or overcome this competition. Towards the end of his speech he gave what I thought was the solution, that we should develop our efficiency to the maximum, both from the point of view of machines and men. I was also interested in his comments on his experience of the vertical side of the industry in Japan, which, he said, had many advantages over the horizontal grouping. I have always understood that it was the implied policy of the Socialist Party to favour horizontal grouping in the textile trade and that that was why they brought in their Spinning Subsidy Bill.
They thought that if they could get the whole of the spinning section into nice big groups of 500 spindles or more, then when they came to nationalise the industry it would all be ready for them to do so. They might have said, "While we will not nationalise certain sections, perhaps the small weaving sheds, at least if we have all the spinning in the hands of big groups we can take those over, and all the rest in the trade are dependent in the first instance on them for their yarn." I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham will talk to his colleagues about this and stress the advantages in the textile trade of the vertical set-up rather than the horizontal.
In Lancashire and Yorkshire, when the word "Japan" is mentioned, our minds immediately turn to possible competition. In other parts of the country or the world, the word "Japan" may mean something else, but to us in the textile country it means nothing but the fear of competition. Only today Reuters sent out a message pointing out the increasing competition from Japan, and from China—which is now a new factor in the textile trade—against our products in the Far East, and particularly in the Netherlands East Indies. I gather that China has already had orders placed with her for, I think, 35 million yards of cloth at a very much reduced quotation compared with anything that the Americans were able to offer.
I thought that the hon. Member for Oldham put his finger on the right spot when he said that it might be in the American interest to build up the textile trade with the Japanese, because they would be among the biggest buyers of

American cotton. We naturally hope that the dollar position will so improve that we in this country will once again be able to take our full share of the finer American cottons, rather than having to go elsewhere as I believe we do at the present time. In the Press almost every week we see some mention of the fear of Japanese competition. At Geneva the other day the International Labour Office discussed this problem. The representative of the United Kingdom described the situation now developing in Japan as a danger to the other producing countries. We hope that the Government will be able to tell us how they hope to deal with this situation.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is not here at the moment, because he may wish to elaborate my next point. He said that we could not sincerely ask people to go back into the mills unless we could give an answer to this problem. Those people say, "We come in, but what guarantee have we that the Government are tackling this problem"—if they are capable of tackling it—"so that we can he assured of continued employment in the industry?" I have heard the suggestion that the immediate objective in the textile trade should be to man all our idle machines. Undoubtedly that is most desirable. If we are manned up to capacity and do not have idle machinery, at least we shall reduce our overhead charges by a small amount and we shall slightly decrease the overall cost of our cloth.
I venture to say, however, that even additional machinery in operation cannot reduce prices to enable us to compete with Japanese goods. The assurance that the industry should give to those who enter it is that everything is being done and that the Government are helping in every way to re-equip the industry with modern machinery. The other day the President of the Board of Trade said that in Lancashire we wanted 30,000 more automatic looms. I do not say that the automatic loom is necessarily the solution of all our problems; but at least that was a constructive suggestion. Any improvement that could be made towards increased production by raising the existing labour force should be encouraged in every possible way.
I wish to raise another question which came to my notice recently. I ask the


hon. Gentleman to make inquiries about an allocation of convertible sterling which was made to the merchants in Cyprus with which to buy Japanese cloth. I understand that the other day the merchants in Nicosia were invited to inspect the conditions of an offer of £15,000 of Japanese textile goods for which the British Government had made available credits of £15,000 in what I think must have been convertible sterling. They found to their consternation that the prices of these Japanese goods were about 15 per cent. or more below the cost of goods which they had been buying elsewhere. They realised that if they brought these Japanese goods into the island then their existing stocks would have to be drastically written down. My information is that the merchants formed a committee and decided to boycott the offer of the British Government to assist them in making purchases from Japan. This is a most serious point, and I hope that the Minister will look into it.

8.15 p.m.

Ms. John Paton: I am sure that the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) for having put this subject down for discussion on an Adjournment Motion, and I congratulate him on having had the good fortune to put it down on a night when the Adjournment has come so early. I do not propose to follow the detailed arguments about the textile industry which have been the theme of most of the speeches we have heard. They have been necessary speeches, dealing with a most important problem which this country must face in the conditions brought about by the emergence of a new Japan.
Before I come to my main comments, I should like to join with the hon. Member for Brighton in the tribute he paid to our diplomatic representative in Japan, Sir Alvary Gascoigne—whose guests both he and I were for some delightful weeks last year—for the excellent work he has done and is still doing on behalf of this country in his difficult assignment in Tokio. I am very pleased to be able to join in the tribute, which I am sure is well deserved. I do not want to repeat the main arguments of a perhaps over-lengthy speech which I was privileged to make only last week in the

Debate on the Address, when I spoke of the general situation in Japan and the Far East. My purpose tonight is rather to stress points which I think of great importance and which I did not touch upon last week.
Before I do that, I should like to deal with one matter raised by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) and by my hon. Friend the senior Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst). I refer to the over-inflation of the Japanese textile industry which is taking place now. So far as one can see, that industry is scheduled for almost indefinite expansion. Last week I drew particular attention to this matter. Tonight I wish to re-emphasise it in relation to what has been said already. The present tendencies in Japan under the economic controls of the American control organisation show a desire to develop a textile industry that would be immensely greater than it was before the war, with all the menace that that would hold to the many countries in the world that suffered from Japanese competition. That would be the gravest possible disservice to Japan itself, because it would result in a Japanese economic system which was completely unbalanced with, I think, about three-quarters of the entire economy of the country resting on the one industry of textiles and, therefore, liable at any time to the severest shocks from the movement of world trade.
I have previously made reference to an idea which I believe to be wholly unfounded. It appears to be thought that this emphasis in Japan upon the development of the textile industry is necessarily bound up with American self-interest in expanding fields for the disposal of their own stocks of raw cotton. I think that is quite a wrong idea. I am sure, from my own observations in Japan, from my discussions with economic experts on the American staff and with similar experts who were themselves employed in the Japanese textile industry, that that idea is founded on a misconception.
I think the explanation is far simpler. The American economic organisation in Japan is developing the textile industry, out of all relation to the rest of the Japanese economic system, more or less from pure necessity. They are striving in every conceivable way to reduce the extraordinary burden now being borne by the United States alone in sustaining


the Japanese population in these difficult times, and they have naturally come, as we would come in that situation, to the easy development of textiles in an industry which has largely escaped the destruction of the war which other industries suffered, and for the products of which there is a ready market over great areas of the world. It is really from that purely expediency point of view that this overdevelopment of the textile industry in Japan is going on; but that does not m any way diminish the dangers that such a policy holds for the Japanese economy itself, for our own economy and for the economies of every other textile country throughout the world.
Here we have, undoubtedly, something of very great importance indeed. I think that, in our attitude to what has been happening in the Far East, we have been suffering very largely from the fact that our policies have been of a negative kind. We have never attempted, so far as any evidence that is available shows, to pursue a positive policy. I think we have been obsessed by the very apparent weaknesses of our position in the Far East. Anybody who has been in Japan and who has seen the inevitably overwhelming effect of the United States effort, against the tiny effect of any efforts that we can make, is very well aware of the position, but I think we have accepted the difficulties too readily. After all, when I have been making this appeal so often in this House, I have not been doing it only from the point of view of the resources of which we dispose in this country. I have been talking all the time of an attempt being made by the Ministry, in relation to this problem of the Far East, to mobilise, not the rather limited resources of the United Kingdom at this moment, but the much greater and more powerful resources of the British Commonwealth of Nations. These resources and powers are by no means meagre, and, more particularly, should be directed to policies devoted to the idea of trying to establish our position in the Far East.
Before I leave this phase of the subject, I would like to say a word or two on one aspect of the question of textiles which has emerged from the preceding speeches. The last hon. Member who spoke asked why it is that we on this side of the House, as he charged us,

offer no solution of the difficult problem of textile development in Japan. I think he did far less than justice to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who has an immense and profound practical knowledge of all aspects of the textile industry, and who, therefore, speaks with authority upon this subject. Surely, the answer is that no one on these Benches would ever attempt to suggest that we ought to try by special devices to cushion Lancashire against the effective competition of other textile countries in the world? I am sure that no textile representative on this side of the House would ever dream of making such a suggestion; but what Lancashire is wanting is some assurance that she will not be subjected, in the markets into which she is entering in the world, to the completely unfair competition which she could not by any device hope to meet, and to which she was subjected by Japanese textile manufacturers before the war.
That was a competition not only based on the incredibly low standards of life of the Japanese labour force, but one that was bolstered and sustained by heavy State subsidies, by means of which prices were enabled to be cut in every part of the Western world, so that the textile industries of every advanced country found themselves unable to stand up against such competition. Lancashire has a right to expect protection from that kind of thing. I think that in the existing circumstances of Japan we now see the beginnings of an effective kind of protection. One of the results of the catastrophic destruction in Japan and of her occupation by American troops and our own has been that, in Japan now, there is, at least on paper, an extremely effective code of labour, welfare and social relations, with safeguards and regulations that ought to give to the Japanse workers, for the first time, the freest opportunity to organise and develop their collective power for the purpose of lifting and maintaining a good standard of life.
Before the war, the peak figure of membership of the Japanese trade unions, away back in 1934, never exceeded 500,000. Now the membership of the Japanese trade unions exceeds six million, and they are operating despite the recent military security regulations which I understand have been brought into operation. They are operating perfectly freely,


just as freely as any trade unionists in this country, on all matters affecting industrial employment. Therefore, we have that great potential measure to begin with, and the opportunity now for the consolidation in Japan, as time goes on, of a really effective labour movement which will continuously raise the standards of life of the Japanese people and maintain them against anything which it may be possible for the employers to do.
The second thing, surely, is this. Japan, in the new circumstances in which she is operating, will no longer find it possible to bolster her export goods with vast sums of public money which formerly constituted one of the factors in maintaining the competitive levels at which she operated throughout the world. On these two foundations, we ought now to be able to base the possibility and hope that Japan will no longer be able to exploit her people in the thoroughly merciless manner which she employed before the war, to the detriment of the other trading nations of the world.
But there is a bigger factor than that to which I want to refer, and which for nearly three years I have already urged upon the Government on a number of occasions in this House, without ever yet having elicited any kind of effective answer. Surely, it ought to be obvious to the Government, as it is to anyone who studies the situation, that we cannot hope to build up or revitalise Japanese industry, as we must in order to allow the Japanese people to live, if we think of Japan in terms of a Far Eastern vacuum? The reorganisation of Japan, and the building up of such a level of industry in Japan as will give her people the opportunity of reasonable standards of life, cannot be done in isolation. They can only be done when Japan is viewed, as she ought to be viewed, as an integral part of a great Far Eastern economy affecting, for good or ill, every country in that vast area of the Pacific, and, indeed, every other industrial nation in the world.
On every opportunity I have had in this House during the last three years, I have pleaded that, in the whole of this matter of the policies to be pursued towards Japan in the future we should, first, have a clearly perceived objective, and, secondly, a policy of sound plan-

ning which would integrate the new Japanese economy, at the level of industry considered sound and necessary, into the economies of all the countries around her, and which are so plainly affected by all her industrial and economic activities. It is only by that combination of central, long-sighted planning for the emergence of a Japan that will be economically viable, and, at the same time, no menace to her neighbours throughout the world, combined with the internal developments that I have mentioned, that we can find safeguards against unfair competition emerging once again from that territory.
There is one further point I wish to put to the Minister. It seems to me that, on this question of the level of industry in Japan, the discussions that have so far taken place have been discussions on a level that is altogether too low. The agreement that seems to have been reached by the Far Eastern Commission is that the future level to be aimed at in Japan is one roughly corresponding to that which obtained in the years 1930-34. Those years in Japanese economic history were years of depression, just as they were in every other country in the world. Therefore, they are not a fair test, so far as the welfare of the Japanese people is concerned. Yet those very years are taken as the standard for purposes of the level of industry. Let us think of one or two things which we ought always to keep in mind.
The population of Japan at that time was 68 million. She had numerous colonies which she was ruthlessly exploiting for purposes of her own interests and her home population. Yet, in that year, as we all know, she had a deficit economy compelling her to import large quantities of food which could only be purchased by a continuous and expanding export of competitive goods. Today, the Japanese population is 78 million, in islands on which the agrarian economy is scarcely capable of any marked extension, in islands whose great fishing grounds, on which the people's food so much depends, have been greatly circumscribed as a result of defeat. Russia has closed one great prolific fishing area to her for ever. There, in those islands, with a population 10 million greater than it was in the


period taken as the standard, and with colonies, and all the opportunities for their exploitation gone, we have now to make provision for that enhanced population which is increasing every year by nearly two million.
It can only be done, if it is going to be a viable economy, knowing as we do that the possibilities of expansion of food production in Japan are strictly limited, along the lines I have suggested. It can only mean that any viable standard of industry in Japan must take account of the fact that she will now have to import greater quantities of foodstuffs and raw materials than she ever found it necessary to import in 1934. Therefore, she will find it necessary to export vastly greater quantities of competitive goods in order to keep her people and her industries alive. We must keep these factors in mind, because they have an enormous bearing on the central idea which I have been trying to insist on in this House, the need for clarity of objective and for skilled detailed planning as to the kind of industry permitted. That industry must be varied over a large range instead of being concentrated on one particular commodity. It is with that sort of treatment, thinking of Japan as the industrial centre of a great area, partly industrialised and with great potential industrial possibilities, a Japan integrated into the system of that area, that I want to see our Ministers concerning themselves. I want to finish by asking a specific question.

Mr. Fairhurst: Is my hon. Friend assuming that Japan is to be subject to American supervision for some years to come, because if such is not the case, and the Japanese begin to administer their country once more, what is to prevent a future Japanese administration from subsidising the textile industry in Japan? Secondly, is my hon. Friend also assuming that we, along with America, must begin to assist, in every possible way, the industialisation of Japan in order to enable her to feed her ever-growing population?

Mr. Paton: With regard to my hon. Friend's first point, I must ask the House not to press me to deliver again a large part of the speech which I made last week, and which my hon. Friend can, of course, read for himself in the OFFICIAL

REPORT. If he does that, he will find what I said in regard to his first point. I made the suggestion that it would be necessary, even after the occupation of Japan came to an end, to have a supervising agency acting on behalf of the Allied Powers in order to ensure the fulfilment of the plans which we make. As to the second point, whether we are going to assist in the industrialisation of Japan, I am not suggesting that. All I am asking is that the already industrialised Japan shall be allowed such a level of industry as will ensure her people the means of life. That is a proposition which I should have thought was acceptable, not only to every Socialist, but, indeed, to every hon. Member in this House.
It has been a constant complaint of the House on this subject—and it was reiterated tonight by the hon. Member for Brighton—that there is such a paucity of news from the Far East that it is extremely difficult for ordinary Members to keep themselves properly informed on all the important matters that are taking place there. But, occasionally, we see in our newspapers matters that seem to us of great importance. One such notice appeared in "The Times" last July. I want to ask my hon. Friend about it. I have talked tonight a little about the need for mobilising the powers and resources of the British Commonwealth of Nations in a common policy with regard to the Far East. According to the report in "The Times" of 13th July this year, it seems that something of the kind was actually in process in Tokyo, because the report stated—and this is the gist of what it conveyed—that secret negotiations had taken place in Tokyo between Inter-Allied Headquarters and a number of countries of the British Commonwealth—the United Kingdom and her colonies, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa—the object being to extend trade between Japan and certain parts of the sterling area.
If that is true, it is, of course, an extremely important statement. I would like to know from the Minister tonight whether, in fact, it is true because, if this statement is true then here is something of the kind I have been asking for—the preparation of a concerted policy upon which the whole of our power could be mobilised. It was stated, however, that the countries taking part were pledged to


divulge nothing. That seems to me to be quite an extraordinary state of affairs—that there should be meetings of representatives of all these Powers of the British Commonwealth, dealing with a matter of fundamental importance to this country and all the other countries concerned, while apparently the peoples in those countries, or the Members of Parliament, are to learn nothing whatever about it.
"The Times," however, seems to have discovered from somebody something of what took place, because the article went on to say that the countries which were taking part decided that the crux of the negotiations was a clause in the sterling payments agreement by which sterling acquired by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan in excess of amounts which can reasonably be expected to be spent in the near future will be convertible into dollars at regular semi-annual dates. Of course, it was generally felt that this clause would impede British trade with Japan unless a carefully balanced trade could be worked out. All that, of course, is right along the lines of the suggestions I have been making.
What I want to know now is, firstly, whether it is possible for this House to be given what I believe to be vital information on which to form its judgment and make up its mind about these most important matters? It was further stated in this connection that high Japanese officials have said that Japan would be satisfied to receive sterling, not dollars, from British Commonwealth countries, since the possession of sterling would enable Japan to expand her trade with the sterling area, which was formerly one of Japan's most important markets as well as a great source of her raw materials. In fact, while we were in Japan last year, I had this point made to me several times by Japanese—their extreme willingness to go into trading arrangements on a sterling basis with British Commonwealth countries.
In the same report is was stated that New Zealand was prepared to supply Japan with wool, hides, skins casein and seeds in exchange for raw silk, plywood, silk, rayon and cotton manufactured goods. Similarly, I was informed that Australia is very anxious indeed to develop her own wool trade

with Japan on a sterling basis. Here we have a report—none of us yet knows whether it is well founded or ill founded—of important negotiations of this kind taking place in Tokyo. The Minister may say that since all the countries were pledged to secrecy he is unable to satisfy my curiosity. That would be a reasonable attitude, but surely we can ask him whether it is true that the negotiations took place. Obviously that could not reveal anything which is confidential.
Secondly, may we assume that out of the negotiations all these countries did arrive at a single concerted policy upon which they are prepared to deploy their strength and resources in the Far East? This second question, too, it seems to me, does not infringe any pledge of confidence. Thirdly, so important, in my view, is this information which I am seeking that I would ask my hon. Friend to convey to his right hon. Friend the desirability of securing the agreement of the other countries concerned in the negotiations to this House being fully informed of their purport and their result. I ask the Minister to give me an answer to these specific points, and I hope he will take advantage of the opportunity which this Debate, early in the evening, has given of replying to all of us fully on the general statements which have been made.

8.46 p.m.

Major Gates: The House will be relieved to hear that all the points I wish to make have already been made. I wish to emphasise the point, which was originally made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), that there are thousands of people in Lancashire who will be dependent on whatever policy His Majesty's Government assists in formulating for the trade of the Far East. I must support him when he says that we are not justified in pressing for further recruitment to the textile industry until we, as a House, have made up our minds on this important question of policy. It must be quite evident from the very able speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) that this honourable House is starved of authoritative and comprehensive information as to what is the attitude of His


Majesty's Government towards the whole of this very important subject. I want to add just one further appeal from these Benches for an authoritative and comprehensive statement from the Secretary for Overseas Trade tonight.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: It is typical of the resilience of this House that we should find ourselves discussing tonight, thanks to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), a topic of first rate importance, and not one of us need apologise for keeping the House sitting to discuss a topic of this kind.
I think everyone will sympathise with the Secretary for Overseas Trade in having to reply to this Debate, because everyone realises that this is a problem upon which it is much easier to postulate questions than to provide the answers. It is a problem of the greatest gravity involving very real world considerations. If I may deal, first, with the limited aspect, I will deal with one or two remarks made by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson)—who already has "skipped" and I have to reply to him in absentia—because it has never been the policy either of His Majesty's Government or the Lancashire cotton industry to oppose the vertical industry. The proposals to which he referred were based on the existing situation in towns like Oldham where use has to be made of existing mills and improvements made where practicable. Industry is anxious to develop on those modern lines.
I myself a week or two ago visited a modern mill in Adelaide where weaving and spinning takes place, in the same rooms, where they have their 40-hour week under the Socialist Government there, where wages are £8 to £9 per week, where conditions are really admirable, where there are treatment centres for injuries on a scale that would make some of our national hospitals look really ashamed of themselves, and where they are deeply and anxiously concerned about this problem. I am glad that in this House the view has been freely expressed that there is no point in talking in terms of a Carthaginian peace. The real problem postulated is the very real problem which modern war creates. Modem war involves a situation in which the first job of the victor seems to be the economic

revival of the vanquished. Indeed the economic circumstances of the vanquished nation, not bound to maintain the burden of armaments, place them in a position of ultimately having a greater economic recovery than the victor nations can expect. Everyone wants to see Japan have an opportunity to feed her people, and to maintain and balance her standard of living.
Then we come to the next contradiction, which is implicit in this problem, that an expanding standard of living for the hundreds of millions of the peoples of the East is utterly impossible in the world situation for years to come, because the world is not producing the food to feed them. Then we have the position of Socialist Australia, with her 7,000,000 population scattered over a whole continent, with the inevitable fears that are predominant in that part of the world, for she has not a very numerous community, and the whole of her northern territories are depopulated, and she is utterly indefensible with one of the longest coastlines in the world. She has built up a standard of living equal to any in the world, and has, in all those circumstances, to look to a possible revival of the industries of this very great, highly populated and highly intelligent nation. On the other hand, Australia herself would join with us in wishing to find a way out of the problem, and in doing what one has to do rightly for Japan, as far as one can, to try to restore her standard of living in the interests of world peace.
Then we come to the next contradiction, which is also an important contradiction. Because we at the moment are endeavouring to deal with the dollar gap and the export gap, we arc actually exporting an overwhelming proportion of our textile machinery manufactures to industries throughout the world which will enable them to compete on better terms with us. That is also an inevitable policy at this juncture, because the export of machinery is vital to the maintenance of our life here. But it is a problem. I am not going into detail on the point tonight, but many people in Lancashire are really grieved at the little use that is being made of the Act to provide cotton subsidies, and at the few orders being placed at the moment for new machinery to re-equip and reinvigorate the textile industry of Lanca-


shire. As I have indicated before, I believe there are means which the Government could consider of stimulating that industry.
There are two smaller considerations on which I should like information if possible from the Secretary for Overseas Trade. I want to reinforce what has been said on every side. We do not get enough information about what is happening. We do not know what has been happening, and we do not know who decides what is happening. It is natural that America, in considering the problem of Japan, should consider her own cotton industry. That is natural. It is natural that we should consider our own home textile industry. But who has the power to make decisions? I do say that Australia is very concerned. The battle for the Pacific was largely a battle between Australia and Japan in the sense of the battle for territory, and Australia is very concerned at the little extent to which she appears to have any influence in deciding future policy on this matter. I would remind the Secretary for Overseas Trade of, and congratulate him on, the very real success of the recent Empire Conference. I have pressed him on more than one occasion, when he was Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions, to try to establish Empire planning and Empire economic co-operation on a wider scale.
I should like to mention one other point before I come to the point on which I want to conclude. I was informed some months ago that the Board of Trade intended to send a trade union delegation to Japan to take part in the modernisation of the Japanese trade unions, and in educative and social work in the trade union sphere. I do not know, but, so far as I know, that delegation has not gone. I hope to be told it has, but if it has not—and I understood that it was the intention to send it—I think the House ought to be told frankly just why it was not sent, and whether there is any hope of its going now.
The only solution of this problem, is the Socialist solution. It can be based only upon world planning. The world has turned very rapidly in the last few hours in the direction of world planning. It is exceedingly important that we should recognise that the very remarkable results in the last few hours in America are

based upon the fact that the Americans have realised that the taking off of controls, and the reversion to unfettered capitalistic enterprise have placed a very heavy burden on her citizens. The American Election is a verdict for planning, and it is a verdict for controls, and it is a verdict for the possibility of real international planning at a high level and on a very large scale.
I believe we have taken great steps in the last few weeks to that end. We have taken very real steps in the direction of Empire planning. We find that India today is talking with a new vigour and a new realisation of world problems, and with a disposition to partake with the other Dominions, given a lead in that direction. We find that British industrialists today are being treated in India infinitely better and on better terms than they were before. Before, they were regarded as the envoys of a dominating Power. We have to take up on this basis of international planning, as the first problem, the problem of raw material allocation and raw material distribution, and of these vital things one is cotton.
I should like to conclude on this note because I think it ought to be said. Many Members have spoken of the difficulty of employment in Lancashire today. It is a very real difficulty. We appeal to people to work in cotton mills in conditions which certainly cannot compare with the conditions in many other industries. There is no question about that, and it is quite idle not to recognise the fact. It is quite obvious that one can work in a modern radio factory in conditions infinitely better than the conditions of a Lancashire cotton mill. When we appeal to people to go into the cotton mills they recall the experiences of 1922 and 1923. They say, "We were appealed to do more work then, and we were told that the world was denuded of goods. Then in 1923 came the slump which brought so much tragedy and suffering to Lancashire's towns."
The problem today is not quite the same as it was in 1922 and 1923—I am not dealing with it politically—for employment in the cotton industry today is only 250,000 as against 750,000 in 1913; the production of textiles could largely be absorbed by our own population; our textile exports, important as they are—and they are substantial—are


nothing like what they were in the years before the war; there is the increased purchasing power of the peoples of the world, and the production of vast new industries; and there is really a very grave fear that we shall not find a very ready market for our textiles.
It is right that we should bear in mind that Australia has just embarked upon one of the greatest food producing schemes ever undertaken in the history of the world. There has been the reallocation of enormous areas in Queensland for the production of food for the home market of Britain. The Secretary of State for the Dominions and the Minister of Food ought to be warmly congratulated upon the initiation of that great scheme, but this means that Australia will have a surplus which will continually increase her sterling balance to a large extent, and we have got to plan our own exports to Australia to see that there is maintained a stable balance of trade between that part of the world and our country.

Mr. Drayson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, I should like to put a point to him. He mentioned that the textile manufacturers—the spinners—are not making use of the subsidy. Would he not agree that one of the difficulties is the fact that there is no certainty that the new machines for re-equipping can be delivered before, perhaps, two years? Would it not be better if the Government arranged for instant delivery of machinery?

Mr. Hale: So far as I remember, that position only applies to a small section of the main textile machinery. I can say, speaking on behalf of the towns the representation of which I share with my senior colleague, the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst), which have probably the biggest production in Britain of textile machinery, that manufacturers there are deeply concerned about the few inquiries which they are getting from Lancashire mills, and also about the high proportion of machinery sent for export.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): I join with other hon. Members in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) and the

hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) for initiating this Debate tonight. While the hon. Member for Brighton was engaged on other valuable services for his country, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne intervened to get the Debate going. I agree with the general observations made that this is a most important subject, and we are fortunate that time tonight has permitted of rather wide discussion.
I am sure hon. Members will understand that it is not possible—although I do not deny that some of the things mentioned are in some way connected with trade—to answer all the points raised because they are outside my province. I shall take this opportunity of dealing, so far as I can, with the question of trade. I at once give the assurance that His Majesty's Government are just as much concerned as any hon. Member in the House about this matter. That concern has been shown by the way in which tonight hon. Members on both sides have joined in making similar representations. I ask the House to understand that the trouble in the Far East is such that it is difficult to extend trade in the way we would wish.
The importance of traditional trade between the United Kingdom and the Far East is of great value. There is a potential market there far greater than we can meet, perhaps for a long time to come. Until we can see some end to this rather abnormal period we are not likely to have a free and rapid development of trade. May I try to deal with the countries of the Far East, not precisely in the way in which they have been raised this afternoon, although I hope before I sit down to cover them all. Let me deal first with the first country mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, which was China.
In the case of China we are doing everything possible to revive and develop the healthy links which once existed, but our opportunities are very limited. The Government in 1946 sent an official trade mission to the country and we received an extremely useful report. That report was published in January of this year. I regret to say that our prospects of further trade are limited until normal conditions are restored. The country at the moment is in the throes of civil war.


The Chinese have been for a long time fighting inflation, and therefore I am afraid trade on normal lines has been more or less impossible. In spite of these difficulties, when we take the export figures for China for the year 1946 we find that our exports were £7.8 million; in 1947, £12.8 million and for the eight months of this year £8.4 million which, if the same rate of development continues, will mean an annual rate of £12.6 million. This compares with exports of £4.4 million in 1938.
If we take imports we find that in 1946 imports from China were £2.7 million; in 1947, £7.1 million, and for the first eight months of this year £5.6 million, which, if continued, will make an annual rate of £8.5 million as compared with imports of £7.1 million in 1938. The Chinese Government, like many others, including our own, have their balance of payments difficulties and for that reason they have had to limit many imports—goods that were normally sent to China, and which we would still like to send. Consequently we have not such a wide market as we would wish. Indeed, China has an unfavourable balance with the United Kingdom, but she has a favourable balance with the sterling area as a whole. We are receiving tea, tung oil, oil seeds, bristles, etc., and in return, although unable to send some of the goods we should like to send, we have found a substantial market for wool tops, iron and steel manufactures, electrical machinery and reasonable supplies of what are known as "less essential goods." The prospects of economic stability in China do not look as bright as they did a little time ago, and until we can see more clearly how things are going to develop the outlook for future expansion of trade with China is not as good as we would wish.
The hon. Member for Brighton, in connection with China's trade position, mentioned Hong Kong. As he rightly said, the interests of Hong Kong are closely connected with those of China for trade. The physical trade done between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong shows a deficit on the part of Hong Kong. Imports for January to August, 1948, were £81 million approximately, while Hong Kong only exported £60 million. To examine the figures only

in that way would not be correct, because Hong Kong renders very valuable services, such as shipping, banking and insurance, and by that means gets an overall balance. I agree with the observation made by the hon. Member and repeat this for the record, as he wished me to do.
A good deal of discussion has centred on Japan. Japan is a defeated enemy that ended the war in a state of economic collapse. Japanese production is still 50 per cent. below the low period of 1934 production to which the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) referred. May I say, in connection with the observations made by an hon. Member about most-favoured-nation treatment, that we certainly have not at the moment been committed to any such suggestion, and, if we were to be committed in the future, the House can be assured that there will be full discussion and consideration before there can be any decision upon that matter.

Mr. Teeling: When the hon. Gentleman says that there will be full discussion, does he mean in this House?

Mr. Bottomley: I cannot say whether it will be in this House or not. There are many parties involved but, of course, this House will be kept informed. Mostfavoured-nation treatment is, of course, rather linked with the peace treaty, and there are no two views about the peace treaty. But peace treaty or no peace treaty, it is the determination of His Majesty's Government to look after United Kingdom interests, and that we shall do all the time. I suppose that if Japan is to be a nation free from the difficulties mentioned this evening, she will have to build up her industrial capacity, and certainly restore her foreign trade. The Japanese are something like ourselves: they have to export to live; they cannot be, any more than we can, for ever dependent upon international charity or aid from the United States. The industrial development of Japan today is far from satisfactory. Her coal production in 1948 is not expected to be more than 36 million tons, which is about three-fifths of the pre-war level of production; iron and steel production is now running at an annual rate of about one million tons, which is roughly one-third of the pre-war production; cotton textile production, which


before the war amounted to 45 million yards, is today only 720 million yards.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Will my hon. Friend give the figures for pottery?

Mr. Drayson: Is it 45 million yards? Surely it is 4–5,000 million yards. To what period is the hon. Gentleman referring?

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member is quite right; it is 4–5,000 million yards. If we take that figure, it means that today the Japanese are operating two million spindles compared with eight million before the war. In connection with textile production, it is of interest to note that whereas in 1930–34 exports averaged 1,200 million dollars per annum, in 1948 they will not reach 280 million dollars; the United States estimate that by 1953 they should reach a figure of just under 700 million dollars. I understand that figure is not likely to be reached, but even if it were it would be only seven-twelfths of the very low pre-war figure for the years 1930–34.

Mr. Paton: I am sorry to interrupt, but this point is rather obscuring the real issue. Although these figures of diminishing quantities can be produced now, we nevertheless already hear groans of agony from territories like Hong-Kong about being flooded with Japanese textile exports. What matters is, not only the relation to the total production but the compulsions that are put upon the Japanese Government to throw out everything they can produce into other people's markets.

Mr. Bottomley: I will deal with that as I develop my case; it is a most useful point, and I shall not miss it.
To go back to the point I was making about the figure of seven-twelfths of the low pre-war production, and to pick up to some extent the point made by the hon. Member for Norwich, Japanese exports in 1947 were £44 million, which is less than one-third of her imports, and Japan really must pay for her imports if she is to do the trade which we want developed in the best interests of this country, of Japan and of the world generally. As I say, it is the intention of S.C.A.P. to try to make Japanese economy viable by 1953; but that

viability means the pre-war low level to which the hon. Member for Norwich referred, and upon which there may be conflicting views. Yet in spite of tremendous efforts in the last three years, it has not been possible to get anywhere near the standard expected, and therefore, with the best will in the world, it will probably be physically impossible to reach a higher standard than the one I have mentioned.
The hon. Member for Norwich asked about an agreement which had been reached. It is true that in August of this year, after rather long negotiations, there was a payments-agreement with the sterling group whereby payments could be made in sterling although any deficit must be met in dollars. I am speaking only from memory, the House was not sitting then, but I think I can say that in the Board of Trade Journal and in information from trade associations that was made known in order that our own industry could take advantage of the situation. In connection with the other agreement to which the hon. Member referred, it is a fact that for the first time—and I think it is to be welcomed—the United Kingdom, the Colonies and the Commonwealth countries of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India have been negotiating to get a trade agreement for one year whereby we can have an opportunity to get a balanced trade. In this way, as long as we can send goods to Japan and can get goods in return, trade can be expanded to the fullest.
I am not in a position tonight to announce the terms of that agreement, nut I can, as a result of the invitation of the hon. Member for Brighton, say that we shall have in that agreement an exchange of goods. Raw wool, raw cotton, iron ore, some cereals, petroleum, rubber and other things will be going from the sterling area into Japan, and coming out from Japan will be cotton textiles, raw silk, industrial machinery, rolling stock, caustic soda and other things. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich has obviously not been watching his Questions as carefully as usual, because he hon. Member for Brighton has been repeatedly asking when this agreement will be made public. Until the agreement has been reached it is impossible to make it public, but I think I can say that next


week an announcement will be made—I hope that I shall not have to put off the hon. Member again.

Mr. Teeling: Will that agreement in any way include or affect the question of Japanese shipping, about which there are considerable rumours in regard to it being allowed to extend as far as the Gulf of Persia?

Mr. Titterington: Will my hon. Friend make some observations on woollens and worsteds, as distinct from cotton?

Mr. Bottomley: I cannot say precisely at this moment what will be the position. At this moment I would emphasise that cotton textiles are included. The others may or may not come in. I cannot say anything about the shipping clause at this moment, and must ask the hon. Member for Brighton to await the announcement. So far I have been talking about direct trade with Japan but I must also mention indirect trade. In Japan we have merchant houses that had a large stake in the development of Japanese exports. It took us a very long time to convince S.C.A.P. of the value of the services rendered by these British houses, but now, I am very glad to say, there is a more accommodating attitude. We now have between 25 and 30 firms re-established in Japan which are covering services, such as shipping, commercial banking, and other things of that nature. In addition, we have been able to get United Kingdom businessmen into the country. One hundred and thirty of these people have been in the country according to my last figures. I think we can say that these United Kingdom businessmen will do much to help the Japanese in the export trade, and at the same time will give some measure of assistance in regard to our own interests in Japan.
We have also been able to appoint a commercial Minister in the country, and there has now been established an advisory committee made up of representatives of British business interests. Together with the Commercial Minister, they will be able adequately to protect British interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne talked a lot about the danger of Japanese competition. As has already been said on earlier occasions, we have to bear in

mind that we have to make Japan's economy viable while watching to see that the Japanese no longer engage in pre-war methods of unfair competition. We have to enable Japan's economy to develop in order to give the Japanese a reasonable standard of living and enable them to take their place in the comity of nations, while at the same time preventing them from being the aggressive Power they were before and violently undercutting prices. Japanese trade is developing reasonably satisfactorily, and we hope that the trade arrangement which is to be announced in due course will be of mutual advantage to Japan and ourselves.

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that the right of collective bargaining had been denied to Japanese trade unionists. I asked whether we intended to send a trade union delegation to Japan to help the trade unionists there. Can my hon. Friend say whether that delegation has gone and, if not, why not?

Mr. Bottomley: I refrain from answering that question because I do not think it comes within my prerogative, but if my hon. Friend wishes to press the matter, I will take note of it and see that he gets a reply.
I should like to say a few words about the Philippines. That country is a desirable market, and we would like to do much more trade with it. The country is a hard currency market, but does not afford us the best opportunity for trade with it. For instance, the Philippines have a preferential tariff whereby goods from the United States enter duty free for the next eight years, and for 20 years thereafter enter at a diminishing rate of preference. But so that we can facilitate trade we have sent a Minister to the Philippines. We have told him how important we consider that country, and he is now preparing a report on the export trade. When that report is ready we shall see that United Kingdom manufacturers have a chance of trying to expand trade with that country. Although our imports have decreased compared with pre-war, our exports have gone into the Philippines at an encouraging rate though not, of course, as large as we should wish. There will be a


chance of developing trade when opportunities are more favourable. We hope that the new import licensing restrictions in that country will not be too obstructive. They are a sovereign Power, but in due course our Minister will make representations illustrating how trade can be developed by removing restrictions and obstructions as far as possible.
I should like to say a few words about Indonesia, which is also an important area. We are doing our best to push trade with that part of the world, because we want particularly their edible oils, and many other raw materials, and we know that they are anxious to get from us textiles and other similar goods. We are doing 50 per cent. more trade with Indonesia than last year. This week a Board of Trade official is going to Indonesia to see how trade can be still further expanded.
There is another country which is within the orbit of those which have already been mentioned—Siam. That country is also a desirable market, and in order that they can see what goods we have to offer we have invited a Siamese mission to come to this country. It will be our job to see that that mission sees what goods we have to offer, and what favourable trading facilities exist for any country which is anxious to trade with us.
Finally, I come to Burma, whose Commercial Minister visited me today. Burma has already taken a good many of our textiles. They want other goods, too, and it will be our endeavour to meet their requirements so that they can play their part in growing great rice crops which can help to feed other peoples in that part of the world, and encourage trade to prosper. I hope I have, in the time at my disposal, covered the main points put to me. If there are any other questions which I have not answered, I shall be only too happy to do so if I can.

Mr. Paton: I should like to ask the Minister for clarification on one point. I welcome very much, as I am sure the whole House has done, the statement about the Commonwealth trade agreement. I would like the Minister to say whether that means that there is now a Commonwealth common policy with regard to the long-term economic development of Japan.

Mr. Bottomley: I cannot answer that question because it is on a subject with which I am not familiar. I can only answer questions with regard to trade.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Six Minutes past Nine o'Clock.